[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF FORECASTING:
BUILDING A STRONGER
U.S. WEATHER ENTERPRISE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 16, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-302 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania Member
PAUL TONKO, New York BRIAN BABIN, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BEN McADAMS, Utah JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
DON BEYER, Virginia
Rico
C O N T E N T S
May 16, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written statement............................................ 12
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 13
Witnesses:
Hon. Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Environmental Observation and Prediction, performing the duties
of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Louis Uccellini, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and Director of the National Weather Service, NOAA
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Washington
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, Associate Director of the Oklahoma
Climatological Survey and Executive Director of the Oklahoma
Mesonet
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO, Jupiter Intelligence
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 57
Discussion....................................................... 71
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Hon. Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Environmental Observation and Prediction, performing the duties
of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA. 96
Dr. Louis Uccellini, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
and Director of the National Weather Service, NOAA............. 96
Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Washington....................................... 112
Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, Associate Director of the Oklahoma
Climatological Survey and Executive Director of the Oklahoma
Mesonet........................................................ 116
Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO, Jupiter Intelligence....................... 123
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 130
THE FUTURE OF FORECASTING:
BUILDING A STRONGER
U.S. WEATHER ENTERPRISE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie
Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time. Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing,
entitled, ``The Future of Forecasting: Building a Stronger U.S.
Weather Enterprise''. I would like to welcome and thank all of
our witnesses for being here today to discuss the important
topic of the U.S. weather enterprise, and how we can leverage
the partnerships between the sectors to improve U.S. weather
forecasting and modeling capabilities.
The U.S. weather enterprise is one of the most robust
globally, with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) estimating the value of weather data across all
industries in the U.S. at approximately $13 billion in 2012.
This enterprise is built upon open communication and
collaboration between its public, private, and academic
sectors. Americans across the country rely on data and services
NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) provide every
single day. This freely available data serves as the basis of
many of the consumer-facing weather products we regularly
interact with, ranging from weather apps on our phones to the
local forecasts on our TV news. This is a prime example of the
strong existing partnerships between the public and private
sectors of the enterprise.
This freely available data is also the foundation of much
of the research conducted into the--in the academic sector that
feeds into operations at the Weather Service. We've spoken in
this Committee about the increased frequency of severe weather
events that are impacting every part of the country. In fact,
NOAA has found that, since 1980, the U.S. has experienced
almost 250 weather and climate disasters in which the overall
cost and damages have reached or exceeded $1 billion. A little
over 2 weeks ago, Dr. Jacobs testified before this Committee on
the NOAA Fiscal Year 2020 proposed budget, where he informed
the Committee that the U.S. was not the global leader in
weather forecasting. This is something that should be of
concern for all Americans, given the need for accurate
forecasts due to the wide range of severe weather events we
experience as a Nation, and the increasing frequency of severe
weather events due to climate change.
We've also discussed the need to accelerate research and
operations at NOAA, but in no place is that more crucial than
at the Weather Service, as it relates to improving U.S. weather
models and forecasts. However, NOAA's budget request does not
reflect this critical need, with more than 40 percent reduction
in funding for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
where much of NOAA's internal research is conducted, and
extramural research is funded. I hope to better understand how
NOAA and the Weather Service plan to address the significant
research to operations challenge in light of the priorities
articulated in this most recent budget request. I'm looking
forward to this hearing starting the conversation about
strengthening the enterprise, and I'm pleased to have
representatives of all three sectors here today.
While the private sector is perhaps the most diverse of the
three, we are fortunate to have Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
Intelligence, testifying from the commercial perspective.
Jupiter provides climate and weather risk analysis based on
NOAA and other Federal and private sources of data. I would
also like to welcome Dr. Shuyi Chen, whose research at the
University of Washington is focused on understanding extreme
weather events, like hurricanes, and depends on Federal grants
from agencies like NOAA. With the Atlantic hurricane season
starting on June 1, I'm glad she's here to answer any questions
about hurricane forecast improvement.
I'm also glad to have the opportunity to discuss an issue
facing the enterprise, particularly NOAA, regarding the
potential loss of our Nation's valuable weather data from
interference from 5G operations at the 24 gigahertz band. I
look forward to asking Dr. Jacobs for more clear cut answers to
what these impacts will be, the cost to the American public,
and how NOAA is working to mitigate these impacts. I am
entering into the record a letter from the Aerospace Industries
Association in support of this hearing, and the importance of
addressing the 24 gigahertz issue. So ordered.
The weather enterprise is a dynamic entity that continues
to evolve. Given how rapidly our technological capabilities are
advancing, it is clear that we need to revisit the interaction
between the sectors of the enterprise and understand how to
best utilize these scientific and technological advancements
for public good. That's why today's hearing should be a good
opportunity to not only understand the current state of our
weather enterprise, but how the three sectors of that
enterprise can work together toward a common goal. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome and thank all of
our witnesses for being here today to discuss the important
topic of the U.S. Weather Enterprise and how we can leverage
the partnerships between the sectors to improve U.S. weather
forecasting and modeling capabilities.
The U.S. Weather Enterprise is one of the most robust
globally, with NOAA estimating the value of weather data across
all industries in the U.S. at approximately $13 billion in
2012. This Enterprise is built upon open communication and
collaboration between its public, private, and academic
sectors.
Americans across the country rely on the data and services
NOAA and the National Weather Service provide every single day.
This freely available data serves as the basis of many of the
consumer-facing weather products we regularly interact with,
ranging from weather apps on our phones to the local forecasts
on our TV news. This is a prime example of the strong existing
partnerships between the public and private sectors of the
Enterprise. This freely available data is also the foundation
of much of the research conducted in the academic sector that
feeds into operations at the Weather Service.
We have spoken in this Committee about the increased
frequency of severe weather events that are impacting every
part of the country. In fact, NOAA has found that, since 1980,
the U.S. has experienced almost 250 weather and climate
disasters in which the overall cost and damages have reached or
exceeded $1 billion.
A little over two weeks we ago, Dr. Jacobs testified before
this Committee on the NOAA Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget,
where he informed the Committee that the U.S. was not the
global leader in weather forecasting. This is something that
should concern all Americans--given the need for accurate
forecasts due to the wide range of severe weather events we
experience as a nation and the increasing frequency of severe
weather events due to climate change.
We have also discussed the need to accelerate research to
operations at NOAA, but in no place is that more crucial than
at the Weather Service as it relates to improving U.S. weather
models and forecasts. However, NOAA's budget request does not
reflect this critical need, with a more than 40 percent
reduction in funding for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research where much of NOAA's internal research is conducted,
and extramural research is funded. I hope to better understand
how NOAA and the Weather Service plan to address this
significant research to operations challenge in light of the
priorities articulated in this most recent budget request.
I'm looking forward to this hearing starting the
conversation about strengthening the Enterprise and am pleased
to have representatives of all three sectors here today. While
the private sector is perhaps the most diverse of the three, we
are fortunate to have Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
Intelligence, testifying from the commercial perspective.
Jupiter provides climate and weather risk analysis based on
NOAA and other federal and private sources of data. I would
also like to welcome Dr. Shuyi Chen, whose research at the
University of Washington is focused on understanding extreme
weather events, like hurricanes, and depends on federal grants
from agencies like NOAA. With the Atlantic hurricane season
starting on June 1st, I am glad that she is here to answer any
questions about hurricane forecast improvement.
I am also glad to have the opportunity to discuss an issue
facing the Enterprise, particularly NOAA, regarding the
potential loss of our nation's valuable weather data from
interference from 5G operations at the 24 gigahertz band. I
look forward to asking Dr. Jacobs for more clear-cut answers to
what these impacts will be, the cost to the American public,
and how NOAA is working to mitigate these impacts.
I am entering into the record a letter from the Aerospace
Industries Association in support of this hearing and the
importance of addressing the 24 gigahertz issue.
The Weather Enterprise is a dynamic entity that continues
to evolve. Given how rapidly our technological capabilities are
advancing, it is clear that we need to revisit the interaction
between the sectors of the Enterprise and understand how to
best utilize these scientific and technological advancements
for public good.
That's why today's hearing should be a good opportunity to
not only understand the current state of our Weather
Enterprise, but how the three sectors of that enterprise can
work toward a common goal.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. I will now recognize Ranking Member
Lucas of the Full Committee for his opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this
hearing. As I stated in the NOAA budget hearing, weather
forecasting is among the most important matters in this
Committee's jurisdiction, and one of our top priorities in
Congress. We rely on accurate weather forecasting for
everything from efficient crop planting to protecting life and
property. From hurricanes, to wildfires, to tornadoes, we have
an obligation to provide our citizens the most accurate
information on weather events so they can make informed
decisions for their own wellbeing.
Weather forecasting is especially important in my home
State. Two of Oklahoma's finest universities, Oklahoma State
and the University of Oklahoma, have long histories of
researching weather patterns. The National Weather Center is
based in Norman, and is a national leader in researching
climate and weather. This year marks the 25th anniversary of
the creation of Oklahoma's Mesonet, founded as a partnership
between the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The
Mesonet consists of a series of environmental monitoring
stations that provide data to customers across the State of
Oklahoma. Our Mesonet is a valuable climate tool, and enjoys
broad public support. I believe the Mesonet can serve as a
model for improving forecasting across the Nation, and I look
forward to discussing this with our witnesses.
This Committee has a bipartisan history of weather research
and forecasting policy. During the 115th Congress, we passed
the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This
legislation provided NOAA important tools to help address is
sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasting abilities by partnering
with the private sector to collect weather data and integrate
it into the forecast. More recently Congress passed the
National Integrated Drought Information System, known as NIDIS,
the reauthorization built on previous efforts to help monitor
and predict droughts, and attempt to mitigate those effects.
While Congress has taken steps to improve weather
forecasting, we must be certain that other policies aren't
undercutting our abilities. We've heard concerns from NASA and
NOAA about the recent FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
wireless spectrum auction could potentially undermine the
quality of weather forecasts due to the overlap of frequencies
used to detect moisture. We all support the many benefits of
5G, including faster and more reliable connections, but we must
develop it in a way that doesn't lower the quality of our
satellites' remote sensing abilities. I hope the FCC will work
to address concerns raised by the science community.
I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise
today. We have a panel of government, private-sector, and
academic witnesses whose perspectives should inform this
Committee's actions moving forward. In closing, let me state
that working toward improved weather forecasts will be a top
priority for me in this Congress. While we have made progress
in improving the accuracy of weather forecasting, many
challenges remain. This Committee should be a leader in helping
the Federal Government, the private sector, and the academic
community pool its resources to take the next step in
continuing American leadership in weather forecasting.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this hearing.
As I stated at the NOAA budget hearing, weather forecasting is
among the most important matters in this Committee's
jurisdiction and one of my top priorities this Congress.
We rely on accurate weather forecasting for everything from
efficient crop planting to protecting life and property. From
hurricanes to wildfires to tornadoes, we have an obligation to
provide our citizens the most accurate information on weather
events so that they can make informed decisions for their own
well-being.
Weather forecasting is especially important in my home
State. Two of Oklahoma's finest universities--Oklahoma State
and the University of Oklahoma--have long histories of
researching weather patterns. The National Weather Center is
based in Norman and is a national leader in researching climate
and weather.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the creation of
Oklahoma's Mesonet, founded as a partnership between the
University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The Mesonet consists of a series of environmental
monitoring stations which provide data to customers across the
State of Oklahoma. Our Mesonet is a valuable climate tool and
enjoys broad public support. I believe the Mesonet can serve as
a model for improving forecasting across the nation and I look
forward to discussing this with our witnesses.
This Committee has a bipartisan history of weather research
and forecasting policy. During the 115th Congress, we passed
the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This
legislation provided NOAA important tools to help address its
sub-seasonal to seasonal forecasting abilities by partnering
with the private sector to collect weather data and integrate
it into its forecasts.
More recently, Congress passed the National Integrated
Drought Information System (Ny-dis) Reauthorization Act. The
NIDIS reauthorization built on previous efforts to help monitor
and predict droughts and attempt to mitigate these effects.
While Congress has taken steps to improve weather
forecasting, we must be certain that other policies aren't
undercutting our abilities. We've heard concerns from NASA and
NOAA that the recent FCC wireless spectrum auction could
potentially undermine the quality of weather forecasts due to
the overlap with frequencies used to detect moisture.
We all support the many benefits of 5G, including faster
and more reliable connections. But we must deploy it in a way
that doesn't lower the quality of our satellite's remote
sensing abilities. I hope the FCC can work to address concerns
raised by the science community.
I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise
today. We have a panel of government, private sector, and
academic witnesses whose perspectives should inform this
Committee's actions moving forward.
In closing, let me state that working toward improved
weather forecasts will be a top priority for me this Congress.
While we have made progress in improving the accuracy of
weather forecasting, many challenges remain. This Committee
should be a leader in helping the federal government, the
private sector, and the academic community pool its resources
to take the next step in continuing American leadership in
weather forecasting.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chair Fletcher. I would also like to thank our
witnesses for joining us this afternoon.
The U.S. Weather Enterprise is comprised of academic,
private, and public sectors. Our federally funded suite of
environmental observations and weather and climate forecast
models are complemented by a robust private sector. These
private partners distribute National Weather Service watches,
warnings, and advisories to ensure the widest dissemination of
this information in order to adequately protect the public. The
academic sector conducts cutting-edge research that feeds into
our weather models and forecasts. They also train the next
generation of scientists and engineers for the workforce of the
Weather Enterprise.
Despite the strength and unique nature of our Weather
Enterprise, our country is falling behind in weather
forecasting.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Weather Research and
Forecasting Innovation Act, which included, among other things,
a focus on regaining U.S. leadership in weather modeling and
forecasting. I hope our panel will touch upon the extent to
which this legislation has moved the Weather Enterprise towards
achieving this goal, and what remains to be done.
In order to keep up with other countries and be prepared
for the weather risks associated with a changing climate, we
need to optimize our investments in weather forecasting. It is
vital that all sectors of the Weather Enterprise effectively
coordinate to ensure efficiency and innovation. Setting clear,
long-term, enterprise-wide goals can prevent duplication or
gaps in capability.
The challenge of how to improve our weather models and
forecasts will not be solved by the federal government alone.
NOAA and the Weather Service must find ways to capitalize on
the rapid development of new science, technology, observational
capabilities, and high-performance computing both internally
and within the private and academic sectors. Successfully
making these innovative approaches operational is a key step to
achieving this goal. Today's hearing will be a good starting
point to understand the best path forward.
I look forward to hearing from our expert witness panel on
how best to address this challenge and learn where we should
prioritize federal investments in the Weather Enterprise to
build upon the leadership and contributions of all three
sectors. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Fletcher. At this time I'd like to introduce our
witnesses. Our first witness, Dr. Neil Jacobs, was confirmed as
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental
Observation and Prediction in February 2018. He's been
performing the duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere since February 2019. Prior to joining NOAA, Dr.
Jacobs was Chief Atmospheric Scientist at Panasonic Avionics
Corporation. He was also previously the chair of the American
Meteorological Society's Forecast Improvement Group, and served
on the World Meteorological Organization's aircraft-based
observing team. Dr. Jacobs has a bachelor's degree in
mathematics and physics from the University of South Carolina,
and a master's and doctoral degrees in atmospheric science from
North Carolina State University.
Our second witness from NOAA, Dr. Louis Uccellini, serves
as the Assistant Administrator for Weather Services, and the
Director of the National Weather Service. Prior to this
position, he served as the Director of the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP) for 14 years, where he directed
the operations at nine NCEP centers. Before that, Dr. Uccellini
has been the director of the National Weather Service's Office
of Meteorology, chief of the National Weather Service's
Meteorological Operations Division, and section head for the
Mesoscale Analysis and Modeling Section of the Goddard Space
Flight Center's Laboratory for Atmospheres. Dr. Uccellini
received his Ph.D.,master's, and bachelor's of science degrees
in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Our third witness, Dr. Shuyi Chen, is a Professor of
Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. Her
research focuses on understanding extreme weather, like
hurricanes, and intraseasonal variability that affect the
global weather and climate system, and improving their
prediction. Dr. Chen has led national and international
research programs in both field observations and coupled
atmosphere ocean modeling. Currently she serves as the vice
chair of National Academy's Board on the Atmospheric Science
and Climate. She received her Ph.D. in meteorology from Penn
State University, her master's in meteorology from the
University of Oklahoma, and her B.S. in geophysics from Peking
University.
The last witness that I will introduce is Mr. Rich Sorkin,
the co-founder and CEO of Jupiter Intelligence. Jupiter
provides data and analytic services to better predict and
manage risks from weather and sea-level rise, storm
intensification, and changing temperatures caused by medium- to
long-term climate change. Mr. Sorkin has been involved in
Silicon Valley startups for 3 decades, commercializing
technologies in a wide variety of industries. Mr. Sorkin
received his MBA from Stanford, and his bachelor's in economics
from Yale.
The Chair will now recognize Ranking Member Lucas to
introduce Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, who hails from his home
State of Oklahoma.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and I am pleased
to welcome Dr. Fiebrich to our panel of witnesses today. Dr.
Fiebrich is the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Mesonet and
the Associate Director of the Oklahoma Climatology Survey of
the University of Oklahoma. He oversees all activities of the
Mesonet, ranging from sensor calibrations to research. Dr.
Fiebrich has published 26 peer-reviewed articles on Mesonet
activities and research in his career. His Oklahoma roots run
deep. He has a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a
Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma, so thank you for being
here today, Doctor. Yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Each witness
will have 5 minutes for their spoken testimony. Your written
testimony will be included in the record for the hearing. When
you've completed your testimony, we'll begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We'll
begin with Dr. Jacobs.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NEIL JACOBS,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION AND PREDICTION,
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NOAA
Dr. Jacobs. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. Accelerated advancements in NOAA's global
forecast system is a top priority. The future of forecasting in
the U.S. weather enterprise is dependent on the success of this
program, as this model serves as the underpinning for the
majority of products and services offered by the National
Weather Service and our industry partners.
A skillful global weather prediction system is based on
three main components: Observations, code, and high-performance
computing (HPC). NOAA is embracing new and novel in situ
observing systems, such as smartphone pressure, as well as
commercial aircraft and ship data. Many of these valuable
observations are obtained from industry, academia, and State
partners through the national Mesonet program. The commercial
weather data pilot has proven successful, and NOAA is now
planning to acquire GPS RO (radio occultation) data for
operational use. Satellite data are the most critical inputs we
have, and the polar orbiting passive microwave sounders account
for 90 percent of the data used in the global model, and
provide up to 30 percent of the forecast scale. How the
observations are used in the model is based on the code. The
upgrade to the FV3 GFS is tentatively planned for mid-June.
Future critical advancements are focused on model physics and
data assimilation. As part of the input quality control, as
well as enhancing sub-grid scale output, NOAA is exploring
cutting-edge artificial intelligence techniques.
To meet these objectives, NOAA plans to harness external
expertise across the weather enterprise, from industry software
engineers to university faculty and students. By standing up an
outward-facing community model development program through the
Earth Prediction Innovation Center (EPIC), which was authorized
in the National Integrated Drought Information Systems
Reauthorization Act of 2018. Based on the Weather Research
Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, EPIC will serve as the hub
for building and maintaining a true community model. EPIC will
significantly enhance our ability to access external expertise
across the weather enterprise, and place the global modeling
program on a path to regain U.S. leadership, as directed by the
NIDIS Reauthorization ACT of 2018.
None of this sophisticated code can be developed, tested,
or run without substantial HPC resources. On the operational
forecasting side, NOAA has a 99.9 percent uptime availability
requirement, with mirrored parallel systems that can fail over
seamlessly to meet mission critical needs of severe weather
forecasts. The National Weather Service is often compared to
the European Center of Medium Range Weather Forecast when it
comes to models, skill, and HPC resources. While we do have
comparable systems, the European center only focuses on a
single global modeling system, whereas the National Weather
Service runs dozens of models to address a wide range of
issues, from weather and climate, to short range convection,
hurricanes, ocean waves, air quality, storm surge, inland
flooding, solar activity, and space weather.
Transitioning research to operations requires a significant
amount of HPC. One option NOAA is exploring is cloud-based
virtual HPC provided by commercial cloud vendors. The potential
public-private partnerships can solve a wide range of problems,
from limited availability of internal research compute, to
providing systems that are accessible to the external model
development community throughout the weather enterprise. Pilot
programs within NOAA's satellite division, or NSDIS, have shown
that the pre-processing of critical satellite data can be
performed securely and reliably within these cloud-based
architectures. By moving the processing to the location of the
data, the potential exists to extract more value from existing
satellite observations. Likewise, initial testings show that
running the global model code in the cloud can offer a
technically feasible and cost-effective alternative to internal
HPC needed for research and development.
Finally, NOAA's Big Data Project has proven that commercial
cloud-based storage is an extremely cost-effective solution for
hosting and disseminating petabytes of environmental data.
Making NOAA's data more easily accessible to the American
public will create a substantial untapped opportunity for
academic research and economic growth. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared joint statement of Dr. Jacobs and Dr.
Uccellini follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. Dr. Uccellini?
TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES AND
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NOAA
Dr. Uccellini. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking
Member Lucas, and Members of the Subcommittee, and--for--and
thank you for inviting me to this very important hearing. It's
come at a--at the right time. Our Nation is experiencing an
increase in, and impacts from, extreme weather events, such as
devastating wildfires and floods, heat spells, snow and ice
storms, tornado outbreaks, and catastrophic hurricanes. All of
these events are well forecast, and have been well forecast,
days in advance by the best forecasters in the world, the men
and women of the National Weather Service. Weather Service
forecasts execute their daily mission by working with emergency
managers and other decisionmakers at all levels of government.
They do this through a process called impact-based decision
support services, that connects our forecasters directly to
decisionmakers, communicating critical information so they can
prepare a community in advance of extreme weather and water
events to save lives and mitigate property loss.
Decision support is a major component of our updated
strategic plan, that envisions building a weather-ready nation
to ensure communities are ready, responsive, and resilient in
the face of upcoming extreme events. This plan is embraced by
our workforce, who now incorporate decision support into their
daily work. The vision is also embraced by a large component of
academic, research, and private-sector components of the
weatherprise, as reflected by the growing list of 9,300 plus
Weather-Ready Nation Ambassadors, organizations all working
with the National Weather Service to achieve this formidable
goal.
Executing our mission requires a comprehensive forecast
process that begins with global observations, as you've just
heard. Processing those data, running weather, water, and
seasonal climate computer models on supercomputers, forecasters
applying their expertise and training to use that information
to develop accurate forecasts and warnings, disseminating the
information, and then supporting critical decisions made by our
core partners. Underpinning all of this work are many research
and development activities, and the critical facility
infrastructures that support advancing the Weather Service to
stay at the top of our operational capabilities, for we are
only as strong as our weakest link.
We are pushing the limits of scientific understanding of
the interactions of space, atmosphere, oceans, land, hydrology,
and ice. More research needs to be done to understand how these
Earth system elements interact to enable us to improve our
model-based predictive capabilities of weather and water from
the short term to the seasonal timeframe. Our partners have
told us that communicating and delivering consistent and
accurate forecasts to them is key. To facilitate consistency
and allow our forecasters to work more with decisionmakers, we
are developing a new tool called the National Blend of Models
(NBMs). This tool will combine the best aspect of over 170
national and international forecast model members at any one
time to produce a blended 7-day forecast. The goal of the NBM
is to serve as a scientifically valid common starting point to
drive more accurate and consistent forecasts across the Nation.
Disseminating our environmental information internally and
externally is critical to making the entire weather and water
enterprise function. We established the Integrated
Dissemination Program to transfer the organization's
communication capabilities into an integrated, common
operational service, with 100-percent backup capability for the
first time in the history of the Weather Service. Data delivery
services were upgraded, and the bandwidth to all Weather
Service officers and external users increased tenfold.
The level of demand on this system has far exceeded what
was anticipated, and is now reaching its maximum capacity as
user demands continue to grow. We need to continue system and
infrastructure enhancements to ensure future capacity and
reliability meet these additional user requirements. Hiring
expert forecasters and other critical operational positions is
a top priority for us. Through a focused program of policy and
programmatic innovations, we have turned a corner. Calendar
year 2018 was the first year in nearly a decade that hiring
outpaced attrition for that year.
In summary, moving forward depends on fundamental
advancements across a full spectrum of activities, including
our forecasts--our forecasters embracing decision support, the
Weather Service engaging the private sector across the entire
value chain, advancements in science and technology, improved
partnerships with academic research and the broader research
communities that reach across many disciplines in the physical
and social sciences, transitioning these research activities
into operations. As directed by the 2017/2019 Weather Act, the
Weather Service is evolving to provide more than just weather
and water forecasts and warnings. It is also providing decision
support services for Federal, State, local, tribal,
territorial, emergency managers, and water resource managers.
Emergency managers have told us that their partnership with us
has revolutionized the emergency management community from one
that reacts to events to one that proactively prepares and
stays ahead of extreme events.
I am proud of the National Weather Service, especially our
people, who are on the front lines delivering critical products
and services every day to help keep our citizens safe. We have
come a long way, but there's more we need to do for communities
to be ready, responsive, resilient for the next event, to be a
weather-ready nation. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Uccellini. Dr. Chen?
TESTIMONY OF DR. SHUYI S. CHEN,
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Chen. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Lucas, and
all other Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. Based on the questions from the Committee in my
invitation to testify, I organized my testimony around four
topics: Building a stronger U.S. weather enterprise and working
toward a common goal, enhanced national forecast capability and
meeting workforce need to support national forecasting
capabilities, and, finally, we would like to chart a way
forward for the U.S. weather enterprise.
Accurate, actionable weather forecasts and warnings can
help save lives and reduce economic loss. Over the past 2
decades, weather research has enabled tremendous progress in
better understanding weather process and our ability to observe
and predict weather. Atmospheric scientists of the United
States are among the best in the world. However, the United
States no longer leads the field of numerical weather
prediction, as documented clearly by a number of National
Academies reports. I believe that we have the ability to fully
realize our potential in weather forecasting, be the best in
the world. We must first understand the challenges we're facing
so we can identify our weakness, find a solution, making
progress. We need to build a strong U.S. weather enterprise
working toward a common goal. I applaud the Committee for
taking such an important initiative to address this issue in
today's hearing.
So I projected on the screen--you can see the weather
enterprise is complex, has changed significantly over the past
15 years, and continues to evolve rapidly. We're facing
challenges to meet the growing need for weather and climate
information in society. To address these challenges, we first
should recognize we have some specific things we need to do,
for instance, model development. We need weather forecasts with
long lead time. Weather knows no boundaries. What happens over
the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean can influence rainfall
and flooding, heat wave, drought, and the potential for
wildfires in the United States on a time scale of weeks to
months, so to--predicting these phenomena, we will need to
represent the slow varying part of the Earth's system, ocean,
land, and sea ice in our weather forecasting model. On the
other hand, impact of weather is all very local. Hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria showed us very clearly we need the
level of forecast detail down to the street level for storm
surge and flooding, and that aid for the decisionmaking, like
in emergency management, and the electrical grids, and the
infrastructure, and for recovery process as well.
The other challenge we have is the research-to-operation,
which is an unmet challenge. We have tried to communicate it
for many years now. That remains to be a problem because many
of the research product has no pathway--go into operation as we
know today. Advancement in technology, such as high-performance
computing, cloud-based computing, artificial intelligence, new
observing capability, and communication capability present a
number of opportunities for us to really meet these challenges
of the system. So, in order to move forward, I would like to
see the uncoordinated enterprise, as we see in the top left (on
the slide), move toward enterprise that works toward a common
goal. To do that transition, from my perspective, I would have
a few recommendations.
One, we would like to launch a study by the National
Academies on the future of the weather enterprise. This study
can help us to assess the current state of enterprise, and the
way forward with experts from all different areas. Second, we
need to develop a national unified modeling system to address
the entire timescale, cross-scale--from the longer lead time to
the high-resolution local forecast. To do this, we need a
consolidated national center, with participation from the
entire weather enterprise, and multi-agency support. Third, we
would also like to establish for a sustained resource to
support research, observation, communication, modeling,
computing, forecasting, and workforce development.
So, in closing, I think there's no doubt that improving
weather forecast to save lives and reduce economic loss should
be a national priority. Restoring U.S. leadership in weather
forecasts for the benefit of society is a great challenge. No
single Federal agency, no single private industry, no single
university, can do it alone. It will take the entire weather
enterprise. Thank you for inviting me, and I would welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Chen. Dr. Fiebrich?
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRISTOPHER FIEBRICH,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE OKLAHOMA
CLIMATOLOGICAL SURVEY AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OKLAHOMA MESONET
Dr. Fiebrich. My name is Chris Fiebrich, and I'm the
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Mesonet, and I'm also
adjunct faculty in the University of Oklahoma School of
Meteorology, and I want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher, and
Ranking Member Lucas, and the Members of the Committee for the
invitation to speak to you today. The Oklahoma Mesonet was
established 25 years ago, both to address the needs for
improved severe weather warnings, and to improve our ability to
research and better understand the weather. We have one or more
stations in each of our 77 counties so that no matter where you
are in Oklahoma, we have local, real-time observations within
about 10 miles of your location. The power of any Mesonet is
driven by the high spatial density of its observations, and the
goal of our Mesonet is to provide timely and useful weather
information to Oklahoma citizens and decisionmakers.
The Mesonet is a unique partnership between our State's two
largest universities, the University of Oklahoma in Norman and
the Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. Our operational
home is at the National Weather Center on the OU campus, where
we share space with OU School of Meteorology and five NOAA
facilities. This gives our students the opportunity to work
side by side with NOAA's storm prediction center, the National
Weather Service, and the National Severe Storms Lab, providing
unique benefits to both the students and the Weather Service.
Two additional OU research centers that stand out, with regard
to their engagement with the Weather Service, are the Advanced
Radar Research Center and the Center for the Analysis and
Prediction of Storms. These centers are actively developing the
prototypes for the next generation of weather radar systems and
testing new weather models and forecast delivery systems, and
NOAA's hazardous weather test bed.
My primary expertise is the Oklahoma Mesonet, which I
oversee at OU. When the Mesonet began 25 years ago, we knew
we'd fall short of our potential if all we did was collect the
weather observations. We knew we needed to synthesize the data
into useful tools for our citizens, first responders, and the
State's key economic sectors. In the area of fire forecasting,
we've trained more than 1,600 wildland fire managers on
weather's impact on wildfire suppression, prescribed burning,
and smoke management. Many aspects of wildland fire behavior
can be modeled with real-time Mesonet observations, including
predicting the likelihood a fire will ignite, how fast it will
spread if it ignites, and how high the flames will be, given
the observed winds, temperature, solar radiation, and moisture.
Mesonet data are also used to improve production and
optimize inputs for crops and livestock. The occurrence of many
plant pests and diseases can be successfully predicted given
observations and Mesoscale weather conditions. Using the latest
agricultural research, coupled with real time Mesonet
observations, allows growers and producers to make efficient
decisions on spraying for pests and diseases, as well as smart
irrigation decisions.
While Mesonets like the one we have in Oklahoma provide
significant value to numerous economic sectors, the greatest
value that weather observations and prediction systems provide
is for protecting lives and livelihoods. We've trained over
1,400 emergency preparedness managers, police, fire, and
public-health professionals to use our data to keep Oklahomans
safe.
Oklahoma, as you know, is subjected to many forms of
destructive weather, most of which occur on the very short
timescales of minutes to hours. These are threats that include
damaging winds from thunderstorms, flooding rains, and
crippling ice storms. The Oklahoma Mesonet has proven its worth
in this role by significantly advancing a special form of
forecasting known as Nowcasting. Nowcasting is the prediction
of critical weather details in the next 0 to 6 hours that are
often difficult to resolve through numerical weather prediction
models. Subtle atmospheric features revealed by the Mesonet
show the locations of fronts, dry lines, and moisture plumes
that allow Weather Service forecasters to pinpoint areas most
likely for convective initiation.
On the national scale, the Oklahoma Mesonet is part of
NOAA's national Mesonet program, comprising 30-such university
and State Mesonets and additional partners. The national
Mesonet program has proven to be a successful public-private
partnership model, in which the Federal Government can leverage
tens of thousands of additional real time weather observations
from across the Nation without having to maintain and operate
them. This allows forecasters to use these additional data to
improve weather models, and thus every community's weather
forecast.
It's essential that Congress and the Administration support
and expand the national Mesonet to ensure that local
forecasters have access to these highly localized weather data.
The University is proud to play a role in these programs, and I
look forward to answering any questions you have about our
efforts in Oklahoma.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fiebrich follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Fiebrich. Mr. Sorkin?
TESTIMONY OF RICH SORKIN,
CEO, JUPITER INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Sorkin. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
Intelligence. Jupiter predicts risks from weather and climate
change. We work with some of the country's and world's largest
insurance, mortgage, power, and resource companies, responsible
for roughly $1 trillion in assets, showing them the risks to
their assets in their language and relevant timeframes. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
I understand the Committee is broadly interested in the
weather enterprise, leadership in forecasting, the role of the
private sector, and all of this against the backdrop of
increasingly severe weather and impacts due to climate change.
I have three core points. First, broad sectors of U.S. society
are increasingly concerned about the growing risks to life,
well-being, and property caused by climate change. The Federal
Government should, among other things, do more on preparedness,
especially in programs related to infrastructure investment and
the Department of Defense (DOD).
Events such as Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy,
Hurricane Harvey, Midwest flooding, and the California
wildfires dramatically illustrate the need for improvement in
planning for, predicting, communicating, and reducing the risks
from extreme weather. Costs for emergency response and disaster
recovery, especially from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Agency), are increasing much faster than GDP or government
revenues. Recently the Air Force requested that Congress
allocate $4.9 billion for repairs at just two bases, Tyndall in
Florida, and Offutt in Nebraska, from damages due to severe
weather, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The impacts
of climate change are not just in the future. They are upon us,
and getting worse, and the risks are resonating in corporate
boardrooms.
Second, while NOAA and the National Weather Service do an
excellent job of forecasting, they could do even better by
using technologies widely adopted in the private sector,
particularly artificial intelligence, or AI, and cloud
computing. Jupiter, for example, is seeing enormous
acceleration in transitioning research to operations through
the use of cloud computing. These technologies assist in global
collaboration, both inside the company and with our university
partners, and in rapid prototyping and accelerated-performance
testing. AI is also benefiting Jupiter in the spatial and
temporal resolution of our predictions, the speed of developing
new services, and reductions in costs for computing. China, by
the way, is making enormous progress in AI. We need to ensure
that we are not leapfrogged by China, both in the weather
enterprise, and more generally. The Earth Prediction Innovation
Center, or EPIC, is an excellent first step in NOAA adopting AI
and cloud computing.
Third, the path to renewed U.S. leadership across the
weather enterprise depends upon stronger collaboration between
the three sectors of the enterprise. A vibrant private sector
is emerging for solutions to help customers understand, plan
for, and mitigate the impacts of severe and worsening weather.
Investors have deployed billions of dollars in satellites,
other observations, and analytics, including work like ours,
and will invest more, especially if the collaborative
relationship is right, with the Federal Government focusing on
the core modeling that the private sector can build upon. At
Jupiter, we have followed a collaborative philosophy from the
beginning, working with the Federal Government and university
partners. Going forward, I recommend enhanced investment in
NOAA's capabilities to produce better weather forecasts, as
well as expanded observations, to help produce actionable
climate risk services.
While NOAA's role in saving lives and property is
paramount, the private sector can supply hyperlocal climate
information to our colleagues in the private sector, as well as
local governments. I also recommend easing the way for public-
private collaborations, as well as improved mechanisms for
allowing pilot projects with NOAA, which could provide
favorable returns on investment for the government and its
agencies. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sorkin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Sorkin. At this point
we will begin our first round of questions. I'll recognize
myself first for 5 minutes, and I'd like to start with Dr.
Jacobs.
When you previously testified before this Subcommittee on
April 30, you said that the subject-matter experts at your
agency, NASA, and the FCC are collaborating on a study to set
out-of-band emissions limits on the 5G spectrum use at the 24
gigahertz band to prevent interference with weather data. You
said on the record that the results of the study would be
decided upon on May 15. When will--a few questions, if you can
just touch on these--When will the study be released publicly;
what is the answer on an acceptable out-of-band emission limit
to protect valuable Federal weather data; and can you explain
NOAA and NASA's analyses, including how much weather data would
be lost, and what would be the impact on forecast accuracy from
emissions bleed over?
Dr. Jacobs. Thank you for the questions. I don't have an
answer as to when the actual study will be released. I would
like to say that NOAA and the Department of Commerce support
5G. We are dependent on 5G to be very successful in a way to
distribute our tornado warnings faster to the public, and I'm
optimistic that we can come up with an elegant solution where
passive microwave-sensitive 5G can coexist.
That said, right now the input parameters that we are using
in the study were provided by the International
Telecommunications Union, with input from industry. We--
subject-matter experts at the FCC, NASA, and NOAA are going
back and forth still, debating the input parameters. I don't
think there's any debate in the actual algorithms in the code
itself, it's the input parameters. From what I've seen, any
change to the assumptions in the input parameters proposed by
the FCC that have some type of scientific basis produce a
negligible change to the NOAA/NASA number.
The number currently proposed by the FCC, minus 20 decibel
watts per 200 megahertz, according to the study would result in
roughly a 77 percent data loss from our passive microwave
sounders. This would degrade the forecast skill by up to 30
percent, so, if you look back in time to see when our forecast
skill was roughly 30 percent less than it was today, it's
somewhere around 1980. This would result in the reduction of
hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly 2 to 3 days. A
good example of this is a data denial study that the European
Center did where they withheld the microwave sounder data
during the forecast for Superstorm Sandy, and a model, which is
the most accurate model in the world right now, kept the storm
out to sea. So it's incredibly important--it's a critical data
set for us.
The number that we've been dancing around is in the upper
40s, lower 50s, depending on when--whether you're discussing
base stations or user hand-held devices. This number would
result in roughly zero data loss, and then anywhere in between
there we are looking at data loss possibly large enough to
prevent us from meeting our mission requirements with the
future JPSS (Joint Polar Satellite System).
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. I have just a
short amount of time, so I want to ask just more broadly to
anyone who wants to answer this on the panel, as you all know,
our economy is becoming increasingly reliant on accurate
weather data for decisionmaking. Every American consumes
weather data in their everyday life, and it's in the interest
of the entire country to understand how the weather enterprise
plans to move forward in improving the short-, medium-, and
long-range forecasts, and adapting the forecasts to best serve
all Americans in trying to understand how the weather will
impact them.
So can you--can--whoever wants to touch on this briefly,
about the current mechanisms, can you talk about the current
mechanisms for collaboration and communication between the
members of the weather enterprise, and how they could be
improved? Anybody wants to take that up? Dr. Uccellini?
Dr. Uccellini. So I probably had a long history in this,
goes way back--in trying to get agencies working together on
this. I think we're in a good spot right now, with respect to
agencies recognizing that they have to work together to
advance. This wasn't always the case. There was this divide
between research, who didn't want to adopt, let's say, the
operational goals or be hung--have their results hung by an
operational success when their success is measured by, you
know, papers they publish, and the research that they--in fact,
the Academy did a study on this, and they entitled the study
The Research to Operations Valley of Death. So--and I've tried
reaching across that many times.
I think there has to be some kind of programmatic advances
that a research organization, operational organization, see
value in the outcome to both. What's happening in the research
community now, as Dr. Chen has, I think, illustrated quite
nicely, is that they are interested in how we're moving forward
to serve society. So now's the time, from a programmatic point
of view, to--whether it's focused on types of events, broad
scale from maybe seasonal down to the Mesoscale, how we can
move forward in that arena, this whole seamless suite of
products that the research community has put forward, as a
basis for getting researchers and operational people to work
together that, I believe, are out there, and want to do it.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Uccellini. And I've
exceeded my time, so I'm going to go ahead and recognize
Ranking Member Lucas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Jacobs, following
up on the first part of the Chair's series of questions, in
regards to spectrum and those resources, if NOAA is forced to
stop work on its polar satellites, is there another type of
observation that can offset that loss?
Dr. Jacobs. The--not today. I can't say that one wouldn't
exist in the future, but there's not an existing capability to
mitigate that data loss that exists today.
Mr. Lucas. So this really matters?
Dr. Jacobs. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Jacobs, I understand NOAA is still
conducting the Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program. Can you
give us an update on the program, and is NOAA still considering
purchasing commercial data?
Dr. Jacobs. Yes. With respect to the testing of the GPS RO
data in our models, we're seeing a very promising impact. We've
transitioned this over to--actually, in the proposed budget, to
acquire this data as an operational data source. The Commercial
Weather Data Pilot Program will actually look at additional
instruments beyond GPS RO, perhaps hyperspectral sounders, or
other instruments.
Mr. Lucas. Turning to you, Dr. Fiebrich, the Mesonet is a
valuable resource which assists Oklahomans across the State in
decisions ranging from farmers deciding when to plant, that
soil temperature key being very important, to emergency
personnel preparing for weather events. Can you describe to the
Committee what makes the Oklahoma Mesonet unique?
Dr. Fiebrich. Thank you for the question, Representative
Lucas. I think one of the big things that makes Oklahoma's
Mesonet unique is that we have survived 25 years, because it is
a great challenge for the State networks to find the funding to
keep these networks going from year to year.
Mr. Lucas. At least twice in my tenure in Congress I've
made calls home, I'm a former State legislator, to my old
friends about how important this is over the course of the last
decade, absolutely. Do you think we could replicate this model
on a larger scale to provide the kind of weather forecast thing
that we do in Oklahoma?
Dr. Fiebrich. Certainly. Once we developed the Mesonet in
Oklahoma, others took notice. They saw the dividends we were
bringing to Oklahoma. And over the years we've worked with 25
States and countries to help them plan and operate Mesonets in
their regions across the U.S. Because, as Dr. Chen mentioned,
the weather doesn't stop at boundaries--at State boundaries. We
need those observations in neighboring States like Texas, and
Kansas, and Colorado to help make predictions in Oklahoma also.
Mr. Lucas. In my home community, we're, of course, on the
side of the Rockies--Southern Plains, the western part of the
State, as you well know, prescribed burns are a very important
part of maintaining the ecology of the national grasslands. My
colleagues here who have not had a chance to look at your
website would be amazed at the information that the Mesonet
provides, and literally no prescribed burn plan in Oklahoma
starts without a requirement to examine, on a moment-by-moment
basis, the Mesonet sites before you can move on.
That said, in your role as Executive Director of the
Mesonet, and a faculty member at the University of Oklahoma
School of Meteorology, you're uniquely positioned to offer
testimony to this Committee about the collaboration between
Federal, academic, and industry. In your experience, is there
enough collaboration between the different components of the
weather enterprise? And, for that matter, what actions could
this Committee take to promote a more effective collaboration,
Doctor?
Dr. Fiebrich. Well, as I mentioned, the national Mesonet
program that I've been able to witness I think is a perfect
example of that public-private partnership, that cost-sharing
model, where you can take the expertise of the universities at
the State level, work with the private sector, and provide the
Federal Government tens of thousands of additional observations
at a fraction of the cost. I think specifically this Committee
could help promote that collaboration by, you know, steady
growth to the program, supporting the program, because, as we
have more observations, the forecasts will improve. As there's
more support, it'll give researchers the opportunity to look
into new technologies in Mesonets. I think a really exciting
one is using UAVs. We've launched over 1,000 UAVs at our
Mesonet sites in prototype mode to look at how that could
provide observations of the lower boundary layer to provide to
Weather Service forecasters.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. Just one more time, Dr.
Jacobs, let's go back for a moment to the polar satellites. At
the present time, if we lose the ability to use those, there's
not another resource of that nature, at the present time,
available to replace them with that----
Dr. Jacobs. No. We have no other capability to passively
observe water vapor.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. I'll now
recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I am deeply concerned about
the reorganization of the National Weather Service forecast
offices. My questions about EVOLVE have faced delays,
misinformation, and many questions remain unanswered. I've been
requesting some of this information since May 2017, so let me
state the obvious, that was 2 years ago. These delays have only
added to my concern about what's really going on at the
National Weather Service. At various times I have been given
contradictory, and sometimes clearly incorrect information and
reasoning for the delays, and, at times, I have received no
answer at all.
Lacking a consistent credible response, I have to think
that, where there's smoke, there is indeed fire, and there has
been an awful lot of smoke these past few years. This prolonged
pattern of misinformation and evasion leaves me wondering, what
is the agency hiding? So, Dr. Uccellini and Dr. Jacobs, I'm
looking for a straightforward yes or no. Will you commit to
providing Members of this Committee with all of the materials
that have been requested?
Dr. Uccellini. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Jacobs?
Dr. Jacobs. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. And can I ask what date would be a reasonable
date by which to receive that information?
Dr. Jacobs. We'll have to get back with you on the exact
date, because that depends on the actual materials that we have
to gather, but it'll be as soon as possible, I can promise you
that.
Mr. Tonko. Well, if you could get back to the Committee,
and at least give us a date in the very, very near future----
Dr. Jacobs. Certainly.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. So that we can understand what that
threshold date is. Section 410 of the Weather Research and
Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 required the agency to
submit a report on contractor use and the number of civil
service vacancies at the NWS by October 2017 and to publish an
annual report on the Internet within 6 months of the end of
every fiscal year thereafter. Your agency has missed both
deadlines. Why have you not submitted and published this
report, and when will you do so?
Dr. Uccellini. So we keep track of the level of positions
we have that are appropriated for, and the number of positions
that we have on a biweekly basis, so I'm not--I'm a little bit
confused as to why those numbers haven't gotten out. But, as of
right now, we are appropriated for 4,623, onboard is 4,194,
which is 429 vacancies, and we have over 300 hiring actions in
place right now.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Dr. Jacobs, I expressed to you
the last time you were here that I also have some major
concerns about National Weather Service understaffing. I'm
especially concerned that any reorganization or reduction of
hours not result in any degradation of service. For example, I
recently learned that the proposed changes to how you
categorize field meteorologist will, in fact, result in fewer
forecasters in each office. That is not acceptable. The rush to
implementation of the national blend model, with the purported
goal of freeing up forecaster time, is concerning. Background
of all this makes matters even worse. NWS is not filing
critical--filling critical vacancies.
Let me be very clear. If you are defying Congress and the
American people by using this process to diminish the capacity
and number of our forecasters, Congress will not be silent. Any
major transition of this kind needs to follow a process backed
by research and evidence that show the change will not degrade
service. Some of the new innovations here are great forecasting
tools, but they cannot replace having enough experienced
forecasters on the ground. I have heard from many forecasters
who are worried about the hasty changes being made, and about
the resulting negative effect that this will have on public
safety. Their concerns are credible, and deeply disturbing.
Based on what we already know, the Committee needs to hear
directly from forecasters on the ground, as well as emergency
service providers who rely on them.
I am nearly out of my time here, Madam Chair, but, again, I
would hope that we can work together on this going forward,
because there are important constituents--constituencies who we
should hear from, including the people who work as forecasters
at the National Weather Service, and from the State and local
workers, and emergency workers, who work closely with NWS to
keep our constituents safe. This is a critical service. As a
person who chairs the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change, there's a direct link, and I want to make certain that
we're utilizing professionalism to the nth degree, and--in the
most effective and efficient manner. So, with that, I'll yield
back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko, and I
would just like to underscore the importance of providing the
documents that Mr. Tonko has requested, and, of course,
providing all documents as they are requested by Members of
Congress. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Mr.
Gonzalez for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today, and for your attention and
testimony. In my home State of Ohio we have tremendous research
institutions that are always at the forefront of innovation,
and I want to turn my question to the role academic
institutions play in weather forecasting.
Dr. Chen, what role, in your opinion, should academic
researchers play in helping the U.S. to improve its poor
position in weather modeling, and can you tell us a bit more
about how the institution should play more broadly?
Dr. Chen. Thank you, that's a great question. We have
been--really wrestled with this question for a long time.
Academia play an important role on several fronts. First, the
innovative research has been done at the university level, and
academia, broadly speaking. That's always been the forefront in
the world, and a lot of research products we're very proud of,
eager to put them into useful tools for operations. This has
been an unmet challenge, that I had mentioned.
Second, academics have played a key role in training the
future workforce. The need for impact forecast and how people
respond to forecast, it's very much interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary research, and this requires our current
workforce to be up to date, in terms of both computing,
management, and there's a lot of interface between physical
science and the social science. We are very active in terms of
promoting that multidisciplinary research and education to
prepare for the workforce to meet the challenge, so the
academic community really taking this very seriously. Although
we still have a challenge, we would like to reform our system
to meet the current technology and science advances.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And, Dr. Uccellini, given we're on
the cusp of new technologies being implemented across different
applications and parts of our economy, I'm curious to know what
you see the future role of artificial intelligence and machine
learning at the National Weather Service. And, Mr. Sorkin, if
you could talk about it more related to your industry after
he's done?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, I think it's going to have a major
role, and there's a lot of potential in utilizing that to
assist decisionmaking, both in terms of accessing the data and
quality control, extracting information from numerical models,
whether they're the single runs or the ensemble runs. In fact,
it's no way possible for any human being to extract the--all
the information out of the myriad of ensemble model runs that
we access today. And then in the probability aspects, in terms
of how you affect a decision at key decision points, I think
it'll be helpful there as well. I do want to emphasize that all
these systems are better utilized as they're assisting
decisionmaking by a human being, and that's something that I
think sometimes gets lost in the enthusiasm for artificial
intelligence.
Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely. Mr. Sorkin?
Mr. Sorkin. Yes. Jupiter uses a combination of dynamical
modeling, as is prevalent in the weather enterprise, AI, and
other forms of modeling. One of the benefits of our cloud-based
architecture--or infrastructure is the ability to compare the
results of a dynamical modeling and AI approaches side by side
in the same modeling chain. We essentially can substitute one,
see how it performs, versus the other, in terms of the accuracy
of the predictions, when tested against ground truth data, the
overall compute load, and the explainability of the results,
which, in certain regulated industries, is also critical. And I
would say that overall the private sector, in most other
domains, is much further ahead primarily because of the amount
of investment in AI than the weather enterprise generally.
Mr. Gonzalez. Got it. And then, if you could, how do you
feel we're doing relative to China on this particular front?
Mr. Sorkin. Specifically within the weather enterprise?
Mr. Gonzalez. Specifically AI machine learning. So
generally.
Mr. Sorkin. Historically the United States has been a
leader in AI and machine learning. The Chinese are catching up
very rapidly. They have fewer constraints on the use of
consumer data, which in some cases is an advantage in further
progress on the whole. I think the United States is still
ahead, however, it's an area that definitely requires very
careful attention by the Federal Government and the private
sector on an ongoing basis. And, in addition to that, I would
emphasize the importance of protecting the country's
intellectual property, something the President has given
substantial attention to recently, and that is a critical issue
for Silicon Valley and the country generally.
Mr. Gonzalez. Excellent. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. I'll now
recognize Mr. Crist for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the
witnesses being here today. We appreciate your attendance. Dr.
Jacobs, great to see you again, and to have another opportunity
to discuss the very critical work that NOAA does.
Today's topic certainly is an important one, Madam Chair,
and timely as well. We're only 16 days away from the start of
the hurricane season, so when I heard weather forecasting would
be the subject of today's hearing, my mind immediately went to
Hurricane Irma, which, as you know, hit my home State of
Florida in 2017. Leading up to that storm, the track kept
shifting. First it was up the East Coast, then up the West
Coast, and then finally straight up the middle of Florida. The
entire State of Florida was inside the prediction cone, making
it difficult for emergency managers to make evaluation
decisions, and prompting a mass exodus of seven million people
from the State that clogged our roadways and stressed fuel
supplies. And while I'm thankful that so many Floridians took
the storm as seriously as that, some would argue that over-
evacuation can prompt under-evacuation the next time a storm
may hit, and that's something I'm extremely concerned about.
Dr. Uccellini, how can we improve track forecasts for
hurricanes to shrink the cone, perhaps, and provide the most
accurate information to the public ahead of a large hurricane
like Irma was?
Dr. Uccellini. So a couple of points on that. First of all,
with Irma, we were actually amazed that the government of
Florida actually declared a state of emergency 6-1/2 days
before landfall, recognizing, A, the uncertainty in the track
forecast, and we try to communicate that, and--especially with
our users who are embedded in the emergency operation centers
and the like.
Mr. Crist. For the record, that was not me.
Dr. Uccellini. I know.
Mr. Crist. OK.
Dr. Uccellini. I know. But it was an amazing event for us
as well, to have that happen, given the uncertainties between
the tracks up the East Coast of Florida and the tracks up the
West Coast of Florida. What we saw was that, on either track,
there was going to be significant impact to the entire State.
But you're pointing to a really major problem, that
decisions are made earlier to try to hit that sweet spot for
the evacuations. And, given that earlier need for
decisionmaking, it puts extra emphasis on the need for model
forecasts, because that's the only thing we have in those
timeframes to base any kind of decisions at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 days
in advance. To improve the models, it's all the things we're
talking about here. You need the global observing network. So
Dr. Jacobs spoke to the need for the passive microwave sounders
that any value study of observations into models that I've seen
rates that as the number one observation for the accuracy of
the models.
The--so you have observations, you have--we have to improve
the models in terms of resolution, the data assimilation to
ingest the information for those models, and the physics, all
of the above. And we need--we continually need to press the
computer industry. For running models operationally we have a
primary system and a backup system so that it's always there,
and we're always pushing the envelope on the computational
capacity that we need to run an operational model system to
ensure you're getting the best forecast on a timely manner all
the time. So those three components are there, and we're
working all three of them. Again, like I said before, we're
only as strong as our weakest link. We're pressing ahead on all
three.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you very much. And, Dr. Chen, I'm
curious, would you have anything to add to this?
Dr. Chen. Yes. I think Irma taught us lessons for current
capability. We're not quite--met the challenge of forecasting
impact. So in hurricane forecasts, we not only need the track
to be correct, intensity correct, and also the tool to forecast
storm surge. For instance, Irma--18 hours ahead of Irma, the
forecast for Tampa Bay area is greater than several foot of
water, so you know what happened. Tampa Bay not only didn't get
storm surge, actually water drained out of Tampa Bay. We saw
the bottom of Tampa Bay, because--wind offshore, and water
being pulled out of Tampa Bay by ocean currents. This is a
demonstration that we need a coupled model with ocean, and
atmosphere, and storm surge capability to make that level--
forecast. So that is the lessons we needed to learn.
And, at the same time, I do want to tell you that that
morning the BBC called me about explaining this, because we
have a publication already describing the full coupling impact
on storm surge. So the academic community does have research
results. We're--currently have no direct paths to have that
function in the National Weather Service at this stage. So I
want to emphasize the point we need a mechanism to make
research to operation transition.
Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Dr.
Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
witnesses, for your testimony and discussion of these issues
about weather. Dr. Chen, you mentioned the changing landscape
of the U.S. weather enterprise, and the challenges that's
presenting. You also mentioned, just as kind of an example,
that these include the shifting balance between government and
private sector, so I guess my question deals with this. What do
you foresee, and could you prioritize those for the future
needs of the U.S. weather enterprise, and how and what Congress
might do to be able to facilitate that?
Dr. Chen. Thank you for the question. That's a great
question. We've been--wrestled with this for--long time. The
weather enterprise is broad. We have both--we have three
sectors, the government, and the private, and the academic. So,
in fact, I want to go back to an example we just discussed, the
5G. The weather enterprise is broad. A lot of times our
challenge is even broader because the 5G, that actually showed
us an example, the weather enterprise interface with other
sectors. So I think National Academies have the capability to
bring in all three sectors, and, outside of weather enterprise,
to really make this assessment--currently.
For instance, this 5G issue, it is complex. We interface
with a different part of the technology and economy, so the
National Academy now is planning to bring the board radio
frequency, which is not within our current weather enterprise,
but we are expanding that because--the need for the society.
So, if I may, I would like to comment on how should we go
forward for making this enterprise is so broad, and excellent
on each individual point--parts, but the total is not making up
the sum of each component. The total should be better than the
sum.
So, in order to do that, I really think we have an
opportunity to bring this into a new operating model that
brings in the academic, private, with the government agencies.
Not only one agency, but the multi agencies. National Science
Foundation, NASA, Department of Energy, Transportation. Many of
them can bring their expertise to the table to develop models,
observing capabilities, computing assessment. That's another
complex field that we have not been able to do full assessment.
Whether it's the high-performance computing, or cloud-based
computing, or a combination of many things.
So our horizon really is looking down the road 10 years, 20
years from now, so we need to be totally open, bring all the
sectors coming to the table to design the system. And, in order
to do that, we need to have a national center to bring the
entire community in, and developing this unified model can
address this complex issue we just discussed, because we're
facing the weather impacts, local and global prediction--
increase our lead time. These are huge challenges. Our current
modeling systems are not capable of doing this for the time
being.
If I may, I want to add one more component. So we all have
our phones in front of us. The phone--I have my first iPhone
2007. Only--little more than 10 years, this technology has
changed our entire society. We are looking in the weather
enterprise, in terms of next decade or 2 decades, we have to be
completely open minded, embracing all possible sectors to think
broad and bold, and thinking that we may really need assessment
now, and how do we anticipate what's happening next. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. You timed that very well. You used all my time,
so thank you very much. What a great answer, and we appreciate
it. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Baird. I'll now
recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Dr. Chen's
clearly a seasoned testifier before Congress. Dr. Jacobs and
Dr. Uccellini, it's often been the role of this Committee to
play defense on behalf of the staff, the workers of the
National Weather Service, and I just want to make sure to echo
Mr. Tonko's remarks that we want to make sure that any
reorganization or the reduction of hours don't result in a
degradation of service. We'd like to work closely with you to
make sure that that workforce that's so essential is treated
fairly, and is part of the solution.
Moving on--and I--again to Dr. Jacobs, Dr. Uccellini, I
read really carefully your testimony about 85 percent of the
data is water vapor data that you use for weather forecasts,
and that, due to the physical properties of water, water vapor
can only be measured at the frequency bands currently
allocated, the FCC's proposed radio frequency, etc.--we have
apparently heard a great deal from the digital community, the
AT&Ts and others, saying, no, no, this is not going to
interfere with NOAA. Where's the science on this, and how do we
respond to the FCC chairman's notion that there's no science to
back up this idea there's a conflict with this 24 band and
NOAA's need for the data?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, we've been working together with NASA and
the FCC for the last couple years on this study, and actually,
at the request of the FCC, we've reconducted this study
multiple times, in fact, wholesale rewriting the software in
Matlab for a second time. I really don't think anyone's
debating the actual algorithms in the study. The debate tends
to be around the assumptions of the input parameters. And right
now we're using the input parameters that were provided from
industry that meet the recommendations by ITU. So, if there's
other parameters beyond that, you know, we would have to
determine whether there's any scientific basis for that or not.
Again----
Mr. Beyer. Is----
Dr. Jacobs. Go ahead.
Mr. Beyer. Is this the kind of thing that you would
encourage Congress to take an active role in protecting the
weather data, and therefore pushing back on the FCC's intent to
go forward?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, I, you know, I haven't seen any
scientific evidence to support the minus 20 decibel watt per
200 megahertz number, so right now the only scientific studies
I've seen out there are the ones produced by NOAA/NASA which
have been concurred with by the Navy, as well as an independent
European Space Agency study, which actually concluded a more
restrictive number than we came up with.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Sorkin, in Dr.
Davis--Dr. Uccellini's testimony, they also talked about the
availability of the unique data sets developed by the
commercial sector, the private sector, could potentially
jeopardize not only academic research, but also the market for
specialized weather products and services. So I think they were
trying to do the yin and the yang. On the one hand, we want to
have all this data available to the researchers, on the other
hand, what do you have left to sell? What's the private
sector's perspective on the data sharing?
Mr. Sorkin. The private sector is a diverse and complicated
entity. It's not one particular viewpoint. So, for someone like
Jupiter, we are consumers of the data from the Federal
Government, and in particular NOAA and NWS, and it would be
substantially disruptive to our business if some of that data
and the modeling that NOAA does, based on that data, were no
longer available. On the other hand, like Dr. Jacobs, we see
that technologies, like GPS RO, are quite promising in
improving the skill, or overall performance, of the weather
forecasts, and so I would take a blended approach. It's kind of
case by case. Certain data is of great value add to both NOAA
and the private sector. Other data might be directly
competitive. From our perspective, we kind of sit on top of
that, and will use whatever the best available data is, whether
it's coming from the Federal Government or the private sector.
And that then translates into the best available services for
citizens in places like New York, and Houston, and Puerto Rico,
and throughout the country, in terms of understanding these
risks, and we're really agnostic as to where the data comes
from.
Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you. And later, Dr. Jacobs, I'd
love--explain to me cubing the sphere, and how parallel that is
to squaring the circle, but my time is up, so----
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. I'll now
recognize Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
all the witnesses here. And, coming from an island that
suffered two hurricanes in a row, Irma and then Maria, I'm
really grateful for all the help NOAA and the rest of the
agencies gave to the island. Not just to the reconstruction--we
lost our power, we lost our communication, we lost our radars.
And we actually lost our Doppler, and the airport as well, with
the radars at the airport. So it was because of the U.S.
Marines Corps radar units and the Department of Defense that
were lended to us on a temporary basis for a few months, I
think 9 months until you repaired the Doppler and the radar.
And we allocated funds for that during the bipartisan bill,
plenty in different areas for repairing new technology, and the
sensors.
My first question will be, all the Dopplers and the radars
are repaired using new technology, or they were just repaired
as they were before the hurricane?
Dr. Uccellini. So, first of all, you know, thank you for
your comments. We actually worked with the Department of
Defense, and we're very thankful for the interaction of
bringing their X-band radars to you, and it was more than one,
and--remind everyone you were still in the middle of the
hurricane season when we were able to do that. And we got the
Doppler reconstituted.
In that process, we actually improved the receivers and the
transmitter components of the radars. That was part of an
ongoing effort for the Service Life Extension Program for all
the radars in the United States. So we built that new
technology in, but still operating on the same principles,
including the inclusion of the dual pole, so----
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Yes. The reason I'm asking this
question is I remember working with you guys, and the rest of
the Federal agencies, to make that happen, and remembering when
you used military planes to have the pieces to work that out.
And when you've got no radars, no commercial planes flying to
the island, no water, no electricity, and no telecom, it was a
complete theater of war, what we experienced at that time.
So my next question to you will be in terms of making all
the funds that were assigned for the marine debris assessment
and removal, the repair and replacement of certain assets, the
physical property mitigation, improved weather forecasting, all
those funds that were allocated to the repairs across, you
know, not just Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Florida, and the
rest of the States, all those repairs have been done?
Dr. Uccellini. Yes. We're working according to the spend
plans that were submitted to Congress.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. So we don't need any more funds for
that?
Dr. Uccellini. That I can't answer right now.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. OK. That was the point of one of the
question directly. My second question will be, then, how can
we--if we can elaborate on any other new improvements that we
may need in order to have a better position to withstand
similar hurricanes affecting the same structures, do we have
any other new way to maintain those units on the island?
Dr. Uccellini. I'm sorry, are you talking about--the means
for measuring and providing the information, we are working to
build--we, you know, the capacity of that is always something
that we're trying to improve.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Let me better explain what I meant----
Dr. Uccellini. OK.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon [continuing]. In my question, maybe. We
are part of the Caribbean belt, we are in the hurricane area,
so this is something that, every year, we will have our
hurricane seasons. My question is, the units, the radar, the
Doppler, and all the equipment that we've got on the island can
withstand another hurricane of the same magnitude. Do we
improve the way they were built, or that's something that, of
course, may happen?
Dr. Uccellini. I'll have to get back to you on the specific
specifications for that, but a Cat Five hurricane----
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Is complete destruction.
Dr. Uccellini [continuing]. Will still have its destructive
capabilities, I'm afraid.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Actually, I agree with you. My question
will be if there are any other opportunities that we may have
to improve the location of the radars? I know that when you
brought one of the radars, you established a pilot program in
Aguadilla, and you can come back to me on that. I know my time
is expired, so I will submit the rest of my questions for the
record. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr.
Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our panel.
So when I was starting my career as a young chemical engineer,
I had a colleague who used to like to tell a story that--about
a boy who walks by a cave, and he sees a dragon, and he taps
the dragon with a pencil, and the dragon stays asleep. And he
said, only the dumbest kid on the planet would say, you know
what, I can linearly extrapolate that I can probably safely
punch the dragon in the nose. I tell that story because over
the course of my lifetime, atmospheric CO2
concentrations have gone from 325 to 415, almost 30 percent,
and we have behaved like that dumb little kid. We have linearly
extrapolated that first 10 ppm, 20 ppm, didn't seem to do
anything, and so we've just kept burping CO2 into
the atmosphere, and we have now woken up the dragon. The nerd
version of this is do not perturb volatile systems.
Fourteen billion-dollar weather events last year, wildfires
on the West Coast, the bomb vortex in the Midwest, which
followed shortly the polar vortex in the Midwest, Midwest
flooding. Every year is the hottest year on record. And in an
increasingly volatile system, we depend increasingly on having
accurate weather forecasting for our farmers, for folks on the
coast, folks in--like my daughter wondering how to seal the
door when the bomb vortex was coming in.
I am really concerned, in light of that history, that the
Trump FY 2020 budget request slashes our ability to do weather
forecasting. I think it's a 7 percent total cut. It's a $12.5
million cut in Mesonet funding, sorry, Dr. Fiebrich. I believe
it's a halt in HPC resources for hydrological prediction, which
is a concern about Midwest flooding, and almost a 10 percent
cut in full-time employees at the National Weather Service. Dr.
Jacobs and Dr. Uccellini, were you consulted on that budget
request?
Dr. Jacobs. So we spent a lot of time working very hard
trying to put this budget together, and, in a situation that
required really tough choices, and trying to balance
priorities, we made the decision to implement these cuts
primarily on external grants. So we are going to----
Mr. Casten. But hang on, you say hard choices. You--did you
make a decision programmatically to cut those services, or were
you told to meet a dollar value?
Dr. Jacobs. So we have a number that we have to work
within----
Mr. Casten. No, excuse me, you don't. You can propose
whatever budget you want. We're going to decide whether you
like it. Did you request--did you formally request that budget,
or were you told by the Trump Administration this was the
budget you had to manage to?
Dr. Jacobs. So this budget was our formal request----
Mr. Casten. OK. So you requested those cuts in programmatic
resources?
Dr. Jacobs [continuing]. But these cuts do not pertain to
our actual operational capabilities. There's not going to be
any degradation in our forecasting capability.
Mr. Casten. Did you formally model that?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, there will probably be a delay in some of
the research capability, but that was the reason why we
implemented the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. That was an
additional $15 million to harness the external development----
Mr. Casten. No, but hang on, you just said this is not a
diminution in the--I mean, I heard you talk about the
importance of the HPC program, which is being cut. I heard a
lot about Mesonet, which is being cut. You're saying that there
will be no diminution of our modeling resources. How did you
come to that conclusion?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, a lot of the research side of the compute
we can actually work in the cloud. There's also another thing
that we're looking at, in the interest of doing acquisition of
HPC, is a cancellation liability fee. So that's something
that's actually----
Mr. Casten. OK, but we're tight on time. I'm asking a
quantitative question, and you're giving me a qualitative
answer. How do we--you know--how do we know, on this side of
the dais, how does the American public know that in a world
with more and more volatile weather, that these draconian cuts
to the system are, in fact, going to maintain accuracy of
weather forecasting in an increasingly volatile weather world?
Dr. Jacobs. We would not make any cuts that are going to
decrease our forecasting skill. How we prove that to you, I
suppose you would have to look at our model verification
scores.
Mr. Casten. Can you share the--that analysis with the
Committee?
Dr. Jacobs. They're posted online. I can share the link.
Mr. Casten. If you are wrong, how quick is it to restore
those programs?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, I'm confident I'm not going to be wrong,
so that's a question that I can't answer.
Mr. Casten. I don't think any of us should be that
hubristic, sir. I'm not that confident in my own abilities.
Dr. Jacobs. Well----
Mr. Casten. If we cut 110 people, how much institutional
knowledge is lost? If we are no longer funding the HPC program,
and all of a sudden a flood comes through that we didn't
predict, it's a little late to say, well, Dr. Jacobs said he
was confident he wasn't going to be wrong. How do we get that
confidence, as we sit here and decide what the budget should
be?
Dr. Jacobs. So these cuts were to extramural grant programs
with cooperative institutes and programs like that. We're not
making any cuts to our operational capability.
Mr. Casten. Well----
Dr. Jacobs. It's not going to get worse.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. My time is up, but 110 employees
is a concern. I yield back my time. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Casten. I'll now
recognize Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. If I could just follow up on that same line of
questioning, I would just like to clarify, because I don't
know--I also was concerned that there are such serious cuts in
the 2020 budget request. I have a National Weather Service
forecast office in my district, with excellent employees who
just went through a government shutdown and worked without
being paid this same year, doing, you know, work that we all
know needs to be done. So under--let me just make it a simple
question. Under your budget request, as you see it now, do you
believe that there would be any staff positions cut from the
National Weather Service office in my district, in the 17th
District of Pennsylvania?
Dr. Jacobs. No. We're not planning to cut any staff offices
or personnel there. We're actually--so this last year was the
first year since 2011 that hiring has actually outpaced
attrition. If there was a decrease in actual staff, it was
because the shutdown happened at the end of the year, and
typically people retire at the end of the year, so we have to
cover that gap, and we're still in the process of digging out
of that hole, but we are certainly headed in a positive
direction.
Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that clarification. So you believe
that the cuts you have requested would not apply to actual
personnel, but would apply to some of these other research
programs that you're talking about?
Dr. Jacobs. It's on the research side. And I would like to
take this opportunity to also highlight the national blend of
models. I want to make sure everyone's aware that this is not
meant to replace forecasters at all. It's meant to be a tool to
help them.
Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that. Thank you. Dr. Uccellini, do
you agree with that same assessment by Dr. Jacobs, that there
will not be a personnel impact from the budget cuts you are
proposing?
Dr. Uccellini. The budget states that they recognize our
desire to apply personnel to this decision support services,
but some of those resources will be redirected to other
administration priorities.
Mr. Lamb. Would you mind just answering my question with a
yes or no? His assessment is that it will not affect staff or
personnel in the weather forecasting offices. Do you agree with
that?
Dr. Uccellini. The--there is a decrease in the Weather
Service that are--that's applied to the particular part of the
budget that does involve personnel. There is still a question
as to whether we can absorb that or not, with respect to the
current staffing levels.
Mr. Lamb. And which personnel would be affected that you're
referring to? Which portion of the budget is that?
Dr. Uccellini. That's the analyze forecast support. It's
the--in the forecast area. So that--it's not a large cut, but
it's something that we have to look at and apply within that
particular portfolio.
Mr. Lamb. OK. And there are about 434 vacancies at the
National Weather Service already?
Dr. Uccellini. 429.
Mr. Lamb. 429? All right. It's moving in the right
direction, I guess. My point is this. I've met these people.
They live and work in my district. They do excellent work. They
absorbed a very difficult shock in their own personal lives,
when they had to work through the shutdown this year, doing
work that the country needs them to do. I think they deserve a
little bit of clarity on whether they're getting help inside
their agency or not. Many of these people feel overworked.
They're working additional hours. Now they realize that, you
know, the administration that oversees them is proposing cuts
to their agency, and we're getting two different stories on
whether those cuts are going to affect the personnel situation
at that office. So I would request that the two of you
communicate over exactly what's happening here, and if you can
follow up with us on exactly what the personnel impact of these
budget cuts would be, I think we all want to know that before,
you know, we render a decision on what we think of the budget
request. And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamb. And I--
again, I want to thank all of the witnesses. This has been such
a good panel that your prize is a second round of questions
from Members of Congress. So we agreed up here that this is
something--we all would like to follow up on a few other
things, and so I'm going to first yield myself an additional 5
minutes to ask questions, and I want to do a quick follow up on
the budget.
We've already had a budget hearing, but I did want to
follow up, as we talk about funding levels, about making sure
that our communities are equipped with an accurate hurricane
forecast. As we head into hurricane season, that is the number
one concern in my district. I represent Houston, and we, of
course, were impacted by Hurricane Harvey. So, on the budget
question, I just want to ask you, Dr. Jacobs, to follow up, can
NOAA ensure that our communities are equipped with the best
possible hurricane forecast, given the funding cuts in these
areas?
Dr. Jacobs. There's not going to be any degradation to the
forecast skill.
Mr. Lamb. OK. And then my other follow up question, before
I was asking, and Dr. Uccellini had a chance to answer my
question, but would anyone else like to comment on mechanisms
for collaboration and communication between the members of the
weather enterprise? I think I cutoff some potential answers in
the last round, so I would love to hear from you, Dr. Chen,
from Mr. Sorkin, anyone who wants to weigh in on this.
Dr. Chen. Thank you for the question. If I may, I would
like to address--several questions came up during this hearing
specifically addressing to, Chairwoman, your question about how
we best go forward. One of the difficulties right now is our
enterprise has this very broad, complex needs for the society
service. So currently we have--like NOAA and some other
agencies, the budgetary priority is set year to year, and
sometimes we are put in this reactive position, which--
something that National Academy has been proposing the study to
look long-term at how we best predict these weather extremes,
and--in the changing climate that will benefit society in the
long term how do we best position ourself--forecast weather
to--from the very high-resolution model, like resolving Harvey,
flooding, if you probably recall, during Harvey much of the
flooding was due to rain. Storm surge blocked drainage. Also,
the built environment that actually blocked the drainage to the
ground. So these are very challenging.
In my third part of the written testimony, we--asking
Congress to help. So I think you can really help to organize
this enterprise, look 10 years, 20 years down the road. We had
very successful models to do this before. The decadal survey
from the Earth--observing from space just published last year,
that map out very long-term plan--200 scientists involved in
developing that plan, and take a long-term vision. So this way,
if we have something like that in the weather enterprise, we
can best organize our entire country to take a long-term plan.
We do not have to do this reactive thing that--year to year
that put us in this very difficult position.
I'm pretty sure the whole country will be saying, well if
we have weather like the decadal survey we can start acting
now, and continue to meet our challenges.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Chen. Mr. Sorkin?
Mr. Sorkin. Thank you. Jupiter looks at this question from
several perspectives. First, our current product, second, our
product road map, and third, the difference between
universities and the public sector. With regard to our existing
products, the company is 2-1/2 years old. We deployed our first
service in under a year, and part of that was through
collaborations with university partners in New York that
included Columbia University and Brooklyn College, where we
identified very specific scientific expertise that we wanted to
leverage into our commercial services. We've done the same
thing with Rice in Houston, and similarly in Florida and around
the world.
Second, from the perspective of our long term product road
map, so say 3 to 10 years, we identify emerging science that we
believe will have a positive impact on the predictive quality
of our services for protecting life, and infrastructure, and
continuity of mission for things like hospitals, and roads, and
hotels, and power plants, and the like. And there--we talked
earlier about cloud computing. One of the things that we're
working quite aggressively on is helping our university
partners access cloud compute resource, integrate it into our
operational infrastructure, and test the models even before
they're ready for operations to accelerate the research to
operations process. We can do that because we're very targeted
on a specific set of customer solutions, and work backward from
that to the short-term and medium-term science that's required.
From a government perspective, we have a very good dialog
with our colleagues at NOAA, and I think they're--the best,
most useful thing, from a NOAA perspective, is transparency on
the existing scientific priorities, as well as what's coming
down the pike, both internally within NOAA, and from a
scientific funding perspective. I think they do a good job on
that, and we'll continue to work closely with them to better
understand what's coming down the road to deliver these risk
services in places like Houston and Texas generally.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Sorkin. And I've once
again gone over my time. I'm going to recognize Ranking Member
Lucas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Jacobs, let's talk
for a moment more about the spectrum issue, and at the
conclusion I'd like to offer an observation or two about the
budget process.
And while--question to you, sir. While we wait for the
public release of the NOAA/NASA study, can you explain the
process you used to validate the study?
Dr. Jacobs. So typically we would take these algorithms, we
would use a baseline set of assumptions, first testing things
that are known quantities, and reproducing outputs that are
known. That's how we actually verify the code. The actual
subject-matter experts--this was validated with NOAA subject-
matter experts. It was concurred with the Navy, and then, most
importantly, validated by the subject-matter experts at NASA,
and this is an agency that sent a man to the moon 50 years ago
using calculators, so I would certainly trust their input. But
just to convince myself, I actually got a copy of the Matlab
code myself, and I can tell you it's fairly straightforward.
You don't even need to compile it. You just have to have Matlab
and the right toolboxes.
Mr. Lucas. So you don't even need a slide rule to do that?
Dr. Jacobs. Or an abacus.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Dr. Jacobs, also would you describe
the timeframe of NOAA's interaction with the FCC leading up to
the March spectrum auction?
Dr. Jacobs. So we had assembled subject-matter experts from
NOAA, NASA, and the FCC as far back as 2017, going back and
forth on the studies. There was an original study, there was a
lot of questions about the assumptions that went into the
software, which was a pre-packaged software, which is
relatively black box. You couldn't look at the source code to
determine anything from it. So the FCC requested that we
reconduct the study with code that you could actually see, and
you could actually change the input parameters, which was a
valid request. So we redid that. That began, I believe,
somewhere last fall, November/December timeframe. Then we had
the shutdown. On the heels of the shutdown we reconvened, and,
at that point, had output, and have been going back and forth
with the FCC ever since, where their subject-matter experts are
proposing new assumptions, and questioning the inputs, and then
we re-run the study with those inputs, and come back with the
results, and we're still sort of stuck in that do loop, so to
speak.
Mr. Lucas. The public would call it running the time out,
so to speak.
Dr. Jacobs. Well, we haven't seen anything that has been
proposed by the FCC as far as assumptions that have changed the
results of the study thus far.
Mr. Lucas. So you're comfortable in saying that NOAA has
dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's in preparing this
information?
Dr. Jacobs. I'm confident that the study is acceptable.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And let me touch, for the
benefit of my colleagues, a little bit on the budgeting
process. Having been around a little while, I've discovered
that, generally, when an executive budget comes down, the only
thing that's ever recognized by people is when on the rare,
rare occasion an Administration asks for additional spending,
then we tend to respond to that in Congress. That was a weak
attempt at humor, but a factual statement nonetheless.
Typically Presidential budgets, executive budgets, are
something that are required in the 1974 Budget Act, and are
examined, and set aside. The 1974 Budget Act gives the U.S.
House, the U.S. Senate the responsibility, yes, to look at the
President's executive budget, but to craft our own, and to
reconcile that final document, and use that as the product for
the appropriation process to move forward. While we have an
executive budget that many of us find fascinating, I think the
focus of this body should be how do we persuade on the Budget
Committee to do their work so that we'll have a real document
that the appropriators can move forward with, and fulfill all
the responsibilities of the 1974 Budget Act?
So while I, like many Members, have typically been
underwhelmed by the executive branch budget, whichever
Administration offered it up, the real onus is on us to do our
work, and we should try harder to do our work and fulfill our
responsibilities. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. I'll now
recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher. The--in May 2017
a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study confirmed the
vacancy rate in NWS operational units has already reached a
point where NWS employees are, and I quote, ``unable at times
to perform key tasks.'' According to the GAO, NWS managers
admit, and again, quote, ``that employees are fatigued, and
morale is low,'' and that employees, quote, ``were demoralized
because they had to cover the workload for multiple
vacancies.''
Service assessments, which the NWS itself conducted
following 12 major storms that occurred between 2008 and 2017
found that the ability of the NWS to protect lives during these
major events was compromised due to already inadequate staffing
at critical forecast offices, or river forecast centers. Yet
the Administration has now proposed to cut 20 percent of all
the forecasters at the Nation's 122 forecast offices, as well
as close an unspecified number of forecast offices at night and
on weekends as a result. The President's NOAA budget request
admits that these closures are a potential risk to the public
and partners. How do we reconcile these cuts with the stated
reality that we're hearing from forecasters?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, since May 2017 we've actually focused
our hiring on entry level meteorologists and hydrologists, and
we track every forecast office in terms of the availability to
cover shifts and do the other tasks. And we--we're in a better
place now with respect to that than we were in May 2017. I--not
aware of any plans to part time offices, as it's called, nor--
or shut down any offices, so I'm not sure where that's coming
from, but it's certainly not in any of our plans.
Mr. Tonko. And in terms of vacancies, the number again?
Dr. Uccellini. The vacancies we have right now are 429,
compared to the appropriated level. In other words, we just
heard about the budget process, and we actually staff according
to what is appropriated. So that's 4,623, and right now we are
looking at 429 vacancies, and we have about 301 hiring actions
going. I should also note, for this year, having that 5-week
shutdown has had a major impact on our abilities to sustain the
momentum that we had going into December of last year, so we
are concerned about what--you just--there's not just a light
switch that you turn this process back on, and the same people
are waiting in the--are waiting there to be brought on. A lot
of the people don't stay within that process once it's shut
down.
So we do have concerns for the very near term because of
that, but we were on an upward trend, and that focus that we
had was on the entry-level meteorologists to account for what
you reported on from the May 2017 report.
Mr. Tonko. Right. And I know that the executive budget is
something that we need to work away at, but a starting point is
always an important factor. And, with all of these vacancies,
it would've been good if we had an executive that believes in
climate change so that the numbers in a budget presented from
the executive branch would reflect that in the budget planning
that is envisioned for the agency.
I've also heard concerns that NWS forecast offices may be
reduced, and these offices may no longer operate 24 hours a
day, or 7 days a week. Are any such plans being studied,
developed, or implemented by NWS to reduce the hours of
operations at our NWS forecast offices?
Dr. Uccellini. So what we have seen in analysis and
experience over the past 2 years is that in meeting the needs--
increased needs, as specified in the Weather Act, of the
impact-based decision support services, the forecast offices
are taking on increased importance in our ability to do that.
So I'll tell you that, within the Weather Service and NOAA,
that we are working toward actually supporting those
forecasters to meet those increased needs, and we've listened
to the emergency managers, who have expressed the same concerns
over the last several years, that we're working with them, and
they're asking for 24 by 7 with respect to those local offices.
But how we manage the resources within those offices is
something that we have to do within what's appropriated to us.
Mr. Tonko. Well, in yielding back, I would just ask that
you indicate which sites are--if they are going to be
considered for reductions, if you could share that information
with the Subcommittee, that would be important. And with that,
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I'll now
recognize Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, I
couldn't finish to say thank you to the agencies that helped us
out in the moment of need. And, I mean, all of your agencies
went beyond and above to put us in place after the hurricane.
And one of the lessons that I want you to tell me about is
about incorporating relationship within the Federal agencies
and the private sector to making this happen after the
hurricane. Because without communication, without the radars,
without a lot of the assets on the ground, I know you came
together with Department of Defense and Marines, the agencies
themselves, and even the private sector, could make things
happen.
My question will be, are there any lessons that we need to
put into law, or in an agreement with the private sector as
well, in order to face this kind of emergency situation from
now on?
Dr. Uccellini. Well, one of the lessons--first of all,
we're working in partnerships with the Federal agencies. We
recognize that to--in terms of making a forecast, and providing
it for decisionmaking, we can't do that alone, and clearly
there are other agencies that are actually on the ground,
either preparing a location for an extreme event, or responding
to it, or working after to restore. So a component of NOAA, the
National Ocean Service, spends a lot of time working to restore
the coastal areas and the harbors, as an example.
With respect to the private sector and the non-profits,
which are playing an increasingly important role, many of those
people and organizations are part of the Weather-Ready Nation
Ambassador number that I spoke to, and we work with them from a
public safety perspective throughout the year. So there's a
basis there to be working from, and there's a lot to learn.
One of the learning experiences from that hurricane season,
as many of us prepare for a worst case scenario of one Category
5 storm, what if you have two Category 5 storms? So one of the
tragedies with respect to Puerto Rico was the aid that was on
its way had to turn back because there was even another storm
coming in after the destructive storms that hit that area. So
we're always there to learn from these events, but we are
working together in a much better place than we were 5, 6, 7
years ago.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. My second question will be, and we saw
that in the happening, we got FEMA and the Federal agencies on
the island before, during, and after the hurricane. That never
happened before, so I thought that was better coordination
before the hurricane could hit us, and better information.
People knew what was happening because we got the data in time,
and that's, I think, the most important thing, in terms of that
forecast, the weather forecast, not just for Puerto Rico and
the Caribbean, the whole Nation. And, in our case, the system
that you installed helped us out, not just Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and the rest of the small countries in the
Caribbean that were using, actually, that data when they were
cutoff from their communications.
During the last Congress we approved $120 million for
operations, research, and facilities of those--more than $40
million for charting, mapping, improved weather forecasting,
$79 million for procurement and construction, specifically 29
for repairs in many areas. Before this turn, I ask the
question, if we need more resources in those areas, if we fall
short in making those repairs at that time, and if there's
anything else that Congress can do, and I completely agree with
Mr. Lucas, and actually I want to thank him for making the
legislation possible of the Weather Act--more than 25 years
without having a comprehensive law that can permit--forecasting
these kind of issues. Is there--anything else that you can
recommend to us? And thank you, Dr. Jacobs, for your work in
the agency as well. Dr. Chen?
Dr. Chen. Yes. If I may add a point to that? So former FEMA
director Craig Fugate always pointed out that, with all the
heroic response to emergency, we, you know, are really grateful
for these, but on the other hand, he will always remind us, we
got to that situation tells us we haven't prepared ourselves.
We should try to prevent these things to happen in the first
place. So this brings me back to this long-term planning, in
terms of future climate change. With the sea level rises,
hurricanes are only going to be much more destructive. So how
do we prepare ourselves for the situation that--avoiding the
current situation, reacting to each storm the way we are? So
that is the goal of the national priority, and I think Congress
can help us do--to take a long-term approach. We don't want to
put our society in that vulnerable position year after year.
Thank you.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. I will
now recognize Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm
sorry I'm running a little bit late today. And thank you,
witnesses, for being here. Dr. Jacobs, I'd like to ask you the
first question. In addition to serving on this Subcommittee,
I'm the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Space
Subcommittee. NASA manages the development and launch of the
reimbursable satellite programs, projects, and instruments for
NOAA through the Joint Agency Satellite Division. One of the
programs they developed is the Joint Polar Satellite System.
JPSS is an $11 billion investment from taxpayers in our weather
observation capabilities that protect lives and property. These
satellites provide the bulk of the observations needed to make
our medium- and long-range weather forecasting successful.
Eighty-five to 95--to 90 percent of all data that's used in
numerical weather prediction models come from polar orbiting
satellite data.
One of the most important measurements that JPSS makes is
microwave sounding. Recent reports indicated that the FCC's 24
gigahertz auction would effectively jam NOAA's use of that
spectrum for microwave sounding that serves as the very
backbone of our weather prediction capabilities that protect
lives and property. If appropriate protection limits are not
placed on the use of the spectrum sold at auction by the FCC,
should NASA and NOAA issue stop work notices to contractors on
JPSS?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, we're still in the process of working
with NOAA, NASA, and the FCC to hopefully reach a solution that
we can all live with, but with the ATMS instrument on the
current JPSS, as well as the proposed JPSS 2, 3, and 4, the
mission requirements are 98 percent data, so if we see a
projected loss of 2 percent or more, then it's highly likely we
would issue a stop work order.
Mr. Babin. OK. And if NASA and NOAA continued to fund the
development of JPSS that are effectively unusable as a result
of the FCC auction, could this constitute a misappropriation of
funds by these agencies?
Dr. Jacobs. Well, it probably would not be the best use of
taxpayer money if we were paying for instruments we couldn't
use.
Mr. Babin. Right. OK. Thank you very much. And also, again,
Dr. Jacobs, listening to the testimony from our panel, it seems
that NOAA has a lot to do in order to take the next step in
improving weather forecasting. From my vantage point, this
should be among the agency's very top priorities in the coming
years. Years ago the Office of Space Commerce and Office of
Commercial Regulatory Affairs were buried in NOAA. Do you
support consolidating them, and moving them back to the
Department of Commerce, where they were originally placed by
statute, in order to allow NOAA to focus on its core mission?
Dr. Jacobs. Yes. There's a lot of different bureaus within
the Department of Commerce that would equally share and be very
benefited by this being at the DOC level, so yes.
Mr. Babin. Excellent, thank you. And, Dr. Uccellini, is
that it? OK. Thank you. As you are aware, the Congress
appropriated a great deal of additional funding to the National
Weather Service after Hurricane Sandy. This money was intended
to help the Weather Service improve its hurricane models for
future cycles. As a Member representing a district that was hit
hard, very hard, by Hurricane Harvey, can you explain how this
additional funding made a difference in forecasting, and what
should the Congress do to improve severe weather prediction
capabilities for future hurricane seasons?
Dr. Uccellini. So, first of all, thank you for the support
after Sandy. That covered a whole spectrum of activities,
including numerical modeling for the Hurricane Forecast
Improvement Program, and an operational computer that allowed
us the capacity to actually run the model operationally that
the research community could transition as part of the R2O.
When it came to Harvey, Harvey was a tricky storm up front,
when it was developing near the Mexican coast, east of the
Yucatan Peninsula, but--first of all, the global models
starting picking up on--that this storm would not only be
moving toward the northwest, toward Texas, but also
intensifying, but it was the new hurricane--the--what we call
the HWRF, the new finer scale hurricane model, that picked up
that this storm would rapidly intensify as it approached the
coast. And it was one of these nightmare scenarios that that
storm actually intensified from a Category 2 to a Category 4 as
it was approaching the coastline. And we were ready for that,
and--up to a certain amount. I don't think we quite had the 4,
but we had that it was intensifying as it approached the coast.
The reason this was important was that we were co-located--
we were embedded with the emergency management community in
Corpus Christi, and we were briefing them on when they would be
able to go out and rescue people, and when they would not,
because this was not going to be a storm that they wanted to be
out on the outer islands for. So we actually worked with them,
and when--between the satellite data--first of all, the model,
satellite data, and radars, they actually went out during the
eye, when the eye wall passed over the coast, and went out and
rescued over 250 people, and brought them back before the back
wall came in. So, all things mapped out, the modeling component
of that sequence was actually the benefit of Sandy's
supplemental funding.
Mr. Babin. Great. I really appreciate that, and I'll yield
back my negative amount of time. Thank you very much. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Babin, and thank you to
all of our witnesses for coming today, and hearing us out, and
answering not one, but two rounds of questions. You have a
special distinction now in this Committee. But I really
appreciate the testimony. It was very helpful, and this is a
critically important issue.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members, and for any additional questions from
the Committee to the witnesses. With that, the witnesses are
excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Hon. Neil Jacobs and Dr. Louis Uccellini
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Shuyi Chen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Christopher Fiebrich
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Rich Sorkin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]