Perhaps, rather than warning about budget cuts, you should admit that modeling is not as reliable as you all claim. We thought at least it could predict a few hours out. But apparently not.As a lifelong weather watcher, my daddy taught me to watch the barometric pressures. They are never wrong on hurricane tracks. I’ve been predicting hurricane tracks close to landfall with just a map and internet recorded pressures in the vicinities. Improvements in tech should be helpful in the chaos which is weather. But if not, hire back some weather veterans on contract to give you their wisdom of experience instead of relying on models.
Amy, while I agree there is too much reliance on modeling sometimes, the reality is, an event of that magnitude in that localized a spot requires modeling to help guide you to the answer. And in fact, the models did do their job (and quite well actually) the day of the event. We can argue all day about whether or not it was too short a lead time. But those particular models did do well. I even broke that down with some imagery straight from them in a previous post. It's easy to say that we're too reliant on computer modeling and tools and that the old ways were better. In some cases that is true, and there is much wisdom to glean from how prior generations managed risk. But the reality is that for an event like this, we need help beyond just the old rules.
Perhaps, rather than warning about budget cuts, you should admit that modeling is not as reliable as you all claim. We thought at least it could predict a few hours out. But apparently not.As a lifelong weather watcher, my daddy taught me to watch the barometric pressures. They are never wrong on hurricane tracks. I’ve been predicting hurricane tracks close to landfall with just a map and internet recorded pressures in the vicinities. Improvements in tech should be helpful in the chaos which is weather. But if not, hire back some weather veterans on contract to give you their wisdom of experience instead of relying on models.
Amy, while I agree there is too much reliance on modeling sometimes, the reality is, an event of that magnitude in that localized a spot requires modeling to help guide you to the answer. And in fact, the models did do their job (and quite well actually) the day of the event. We can argue all day about whether or not it was too short a lead time. But those particular models did do well. I even broke that down with some imagery straight from them in a previous post. It's easy to say that we're too reliant on computer modeling and tools and that the old ways were better. In some cases that is true, and there is much wisdom to glean from how prior generations managed risk. But the reality is that for an event like this, we need help beyond just the old rules.