This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Earth Science

Rewriting Weather History With A Sharpie (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 9, 2019
Filed under
Rewriting Weather History With A Sharpie (Update)

Statement from NOAA
“From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link. The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.”

Keith’s note: Looks like the political hacks in NOAA PAO are taking their orders directly from the White House and not from NOAA’s own scientists and weather experts. Let’s hope NASA does not find itself in this situation.
NOAA staff warned in Sept. 1 directive against contradicting Trump, Washington Post
“Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president. In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”
NOAA’s support of Trump over its own scientists provokes uproar in weather community, Washington Post
“Three former NOAA heads have expressed this concern. Kathryn Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who ran the agency under President Barack Obama, said that throughout NOAA’s history, the agency — including its political appointees — has committed “to not let any political factors sway the scientific credibility and clarity of Weather Service forecasts and warnings.” She stated: “The anonymous and disingenuous statement NOAA tweeted out is a major breach of scientific integrity that damages the NWS and stains the agency’s leadership.”
National Weather Service chief backs forecasters who contradicted Trump’s Dorian claim, AP
“The head of the National Weather Service issued a strong public defense Monday of forecasters who contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a threat to Alabama as it approached the United States. Director Louis Uccellini said forecasters in Birmingham did the right thing Sept. 1 when they tried to combat public panic and rumors that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama. It was only later that they found out the source of the mistaken information, he said. Speaking at a meeting of the National Weather Association, Uccellini said Birmingham forecasters “did what any office would do to protect the public.” “They did that with one thing in mind: public safety,” said Uccellini, who prompted a standing ovation from hundreds of forecasters by asking members of the Birmingham weather staff to stand.”
Report: Wilbur Ross Threatened To Fire NOAA Employees After Birmingham Statement, TPM
“Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs from Greece to threaten him and top officials with termination if they didn’t contradict a statement from the Birmingham, Alabama office undermining President Donald Trump’s bogus Hurricane Dorian meteorology. According to the New York Times, Ross called Jacobs two days after Trump wielded his infamous Sharpie map to undergird his baseless conviction that Alabama was originally projected to be hit by Hurricane Dorian.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

70 responses to “Rewriting Weather History With A Sharpie (Update)”

  1. Winner says:
    0
    0

    “Alternative Facts” once again.

  2. Postal Customer says:
    0
    0

    is it political hacks at NOAA? or did the White House threaten NOAA?

  3. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    Interestingly, Trump’s first tweet about Alabama was on Sept 1, the day after what you presented above. By the time of that tweet, Alabama was not under any hurricane threat. The leader of our country should know as much. The evidence that he knows and his admin knows that he should have known as much lies in that Sharpie curve.

  4. Colin Seftor says:
    0
    0

    Trump was getting hourly updates on the situation by the government entity with the best resources and in the best position to know what’s going on, NOAA. And by Sunday that information clearly indicated that Dorian would be moving up along the east coast of Florida and posing no danger to the Gulf states. If, instead of paying attention to what he’s being told by the people who’s job it is to know, he’s listening to what the AL National Guard is saying based on info that is four days old, we’re in deep trouble. We need a President who possesses the judgement to pick out who and what to listen to from a cacophony of noise. He clearly doesn’t, and that is frightening.

    Damn him? The rest of us are actually the ones who are damned.

    (I truly feel sorry for the men and women at NOAA who now have had their reputations and credibility tarnished by some political hack appointed to his/her position. I join Keith in his hope that those of us that work for NASA, either as civil servants or contractors, don’t suffer the same fate,)

  5. Colin Seftor says:
    0
    0

    By Sunday, the projections (the “cone” of probability) CLEARLY indicated the path of the storm was east of the Florida coast. Given that Trump was being briefed hourly, this fact MUST have been provided over and over (and over).

    Where was (actually, still is) the deep trouble? It lies in the fact that we have a president who doesn’t pay attention to briefings, who can’t tell who to listen to and who not to listen to, and who (and I truly believe this) can no longer tell (if he ever could) what is and is not reality.

    Why am I upset? I’m upset because someone at NOAA (I happen to think it’s a political appointee, at some point I’m sure we’ll find out) decided to put out an extremely ill-advised press release that effectively undermines the credibility of any future bulletins and releases that NOAA scientists put out in the future regarding weather events. And for what purpose? To assuage Trump’s ego (maybe we should start calling him dear leader).

    Actually, I am more than upset. I am incensed. All of this could have been avoided. We all do/say (or, in this case, tweet) stupid things. If Trump had just fessed up and moved on, or even if he had just let the original tweet go without any further comment, NONE of this would have occurred. Now we have a weather agency whose every announcement will be questioned and looked at with doubt.

    (And I don’t even work for NOAA, I can only imagine how those who do feel.)

  6. rjr56 says:
    0
    0

    “Looks like the political hacks in NOAA PAO are taking their orders directly from the White House and not from NOAA’s own scientists and weather experts. Let’s hope NASA does not find itself in this situation.”

    *cough*…Artemis…*cough*

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    The degree to which thoughtful folks will scratch about seeking support for obvious lunacy is most troubling of all.

    EDIT:

    Oh dear. Scrolling down and finding your post with the graphic showing a fair amount of spaghetti nearing Alabama, I am poised to eat my words. Or the spaghetti!

    (The point, though, remains, at least in a more generalized way).

    • Colin Seftor says:
      0
      0

      1) That spaghetti plot was more than 24 hours old (probably closer to 36 to 48 hours) when Trump tweeted out his Alabama alarm. By that time the “cone” of uncertainty had completely eliminated the Gulf and western Florida. Trump, who was being briefed every hour, surely would have been told this.

      2) Besides what I wrote above, one has to be careful in interpreting spaghetti maps. One (or two) outlier paths does not entail the issuance of disaster warnings. It’s best to LISTEN to the experts in how to interpret such things. Those experts are called meteorologists, and I’m sure they briefed Trump on the fact that, by Sunday, there was no danger to the gulf states.

      3) The situation is best summed up here:

      https://tinyurl.com/y5y5bln3

      The above column includes a great graphic (put together by a graduate student, no less) which clearly shows that, by the time Trump tweeted his Alabama warning, the probability of any issues or problems west of Florida were zero.

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        It should be concerning that WH staff and the President can’t stay apprised of things like current hurricane predictions and the like.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I thought the same thing! There’s so much data available now that everyone is a meteorologist. I live in a very hurricane-prone place- the far southwest part of Florida. People hereabouts are constantly looking at the maps, waiting for the updates; and to a remarkable degree are fully knowledgable on accuracy and the limits of forecasting.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      People should rightly be scratching their heads and should rightly be angry about a President or a WH staff member using a Sharpie to alter a hurricane warning/forecast cone.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        If that’s what happened, I’d say we should worry about a President or White House staff that think they could get away with that. It’s pretty blatantly a hand-drawn alteration. So they either thought the American public is so stupid no one would notice, or they thought that was a believable forgery. Either way, that doesn’t speak well of the people involved.

        But I’ll go out on a limb and suggest something less stupid or malicious. What if a staffer, or even Mr. Trump, wanted to guess what the prediction would look like if they’d extended that cone out one day further? What if that person just started sketching on the chart they’d been given? And then they forgot and Mr. Trump used the marked-up version as a prop. I’m not saying that’s what happened. I’m saying that’s as plausible as some of the things I’ve heard people suggest. Of course, even if that were true, it wouldn’t reflect well on the judgement of the people in the White House (and the “I was right all along” tone doesn’t reflect well on their honesty.)

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          POTUS is famous for his black Sharpies. He has special ones with his signature in gold on the side. One guess who would use a black Sharpie on a map like that.

        • Colin Seftor says:
          0
          0

          You have GOT to be kidding me! If that were the case, they would have immediately released a statement with this explanation. But they didn’t. And now we know why. The real story has already leaked to more than one news organization and, as we suspected, Trump drew on the graphic with a sharpie. Then he knowingly used the altered graphic.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            No, I’m not joking. The NWS statement was too extreme. It said that there was _no_ risk to Alabama, when there was a small risk. NOAA was correct to say that that statement was incorrect. Mr. Trump was incorrect to say that the risk was high. But falsely telling people that the risk is zero is as bad as falsely telling them the risk is high.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            No, if it were a marked up chart and they accidentally put it up, they _should_ have immediately and publicly said, “oops.” Does that sound like the Trump administration to you? I’m not sure who would know if putting up the marked up chart was “knowing”. I’ll just repeat that if it was an intentional forgery, it’s a pretty lame one and only an idiot would have put it up on purpose. Someone could have done a less transparent job with a bottle of white-out.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            Well, it’s now been leaked that Trump was, indeed, the person who drew on the chart with a sharpie. As for whether the act was unintentional or was a lame one performed by an idiot, well….

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          The first thing I thought on seeing that graphic: “hey! nicely drawn free hand circle!”

          I’ve been in the graphics biz my whole life and I promise I could not draw that circle freehand. So, as long as the scientists among us are speculating: I’m seeing the folks in the Oval Office casting about, looking for something that’s about the right dimeter, like the motto of a coffee mug!
          ******************************
          There’s a story, apocraphyl or not, about a young Leonardo being interviewed by some rich patron (you know, one of those rich people supporting science that Dr. Matula is so fond of!). So Leonardo, miffed that this patron questions his ability, has a very large piece of plain, blank material brought forth, and mounted on an easel; Leonardo proceeds to draw a perfect circle, one later checked and measured and found consistently perfect.

          It the story true? Dunno. Is it relevant? Dunno that, either. It’s a charming piece of maybe-history. Fake News!

  8. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think anyone’s going to walk away from this looking good. Predictions about natural disasters are very delicate things and need to be handled very, very carefully. If you say there is no risk when there is a slight one, and that risk actually materializes, people get hurt or killed. Even if the statements of the risk being small aren’t worded exactly right, people can get in trouble. We’ve seen cases (the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake) where the people involved ended up in jail because the public didn’t quite understand “probably”. On the other side, if you start predicting disasters which never happen, people stop talking the warnings seriously. And that also can get people hurt or killed.

    In that context, I’d say the NOAA statement is quite correct. The National Weather Service’s Birmingham office should not have said, on September 1, that “Alabama will NOT see any impacts…” That’s far to absolute a statement. At the same time, NOAA could have slapped them down less publicly, so that does look politically motivated. On the other side, Mr. Trump should not have been putting out tweets which implied the risk to Alabama was on par with Georgia or the Carolinas. Even at the time, and given the uncertainties, that wasn’t true. There was some risk, but not nearly as much. And the whole marked-up map business isn’t going to make anyone look good, regardless of the explanation.

    • Todd Martin says:
      0
      0

      Cessna’s argument may be summed as “no harm, no foul”. There are many other examples of the President lying which his supporters have taken comfort in as harmless entertainment or style. Surely, one must understand there are risks associated with supporting or encouraging this behavior? Risks include losing the free press after being called “enemy of the people”. I assume those of us here enjoy NasaWatch, which has been known to call truth to power. All I ask is that the President’s supporters set limits – know them and be honest when they are crossed.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think I said anything which disagrees with your comments. So I’m not sure I understand your point. I specifically said Mr. Trump should not have implied (or, actually, tweeted) that the risks in Alabama were anything close to the risks in Georgia and the Carolinas. Nor did I say there was anything ethical about Mr. Trump refusing to admit a mistake. That’s actually something I find disturbing, since (as you note) that’s chronic behavior for him. It’s even worse, since I’m not sure if he can admit mistakes to himself.

        I see that as completely separate from the NWS Birmingham tweet, which categorically stated that there was _no_ risk of any “impacts” anywhere in Alabama. That’s not correct because the National Hurricane Center’s predictions were for a low risk of conditions which would produce minor impacts. I don’t think absolute statements are appropriate unless they really are true. You don’t say zero risk when the risk one in an hundred. Not in government tweets over public safety.

    • Colin Seftor says:
      0
      0

      I’m sorry, but in this case you are simply, truly wrong. This blog post is the best summation of the situation I’ve seen:

      https://tinyurl.com/y6rvfbdu

      In short, the Birmingham office made exactly the right call.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. NWS Birmingham said the there was no risk to Alabama. As in zero risk. In fact, there was a small risk and probably not a serious one. But saying “no risk” was inaccurate and, in my opinion, inappropriate. If they had said that the risk was very small and probably minor, I would have no objections. But when it comes to natural disasters, I think clearly stating the difference between zero risk and a small risk is both critical and a professional responsibility.

        • Colin Seftor says:
          0
          0

          I’m sorry (again), but I can’t let this drop because I think it’s important.

          You saw a graphic which indicated a slight chance of tropical force winds occurring in the extreme southeast quadrant of Alabama. Or maybe you saw one where one (or two) paths from a spaghetti plot went through the state. From that one graphic (or the spaghetti plot) you concluded that there was a risk to the state (a small one, but still a risk).

          But you aren’t a meteorologist, nor am I. We are not qualified to make any such assessments of risk. Those who are qualified placed that one graph (or plot) within a much larger context of factors, including trends in the data, reliability of the individual forecast models, input from other measurements, and (last but certainly not least) experience.

          The meteorologists in Birmingham, based on ALL of the data, ALL of the models, AND their experience in these situations, determined there was no risk. Since I don’t have their expertise AND I rely on their judgement, I trust their call.

          And there lies the crux of the matter for me. Some appointed hack, with probably no expertise at all, proceeded to undermine that trust (or at least tried to).

          (But, after seeing the graphic, you trust that you’re every bit as capable of making such assessments as the meteorologists? If so, I guess you would be comfortable in having the Weather Service release graphics without the corresponding advisories, and you can then make your own risk assessments? Well I, for one, would most certainly not be.)

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        No, the Brimghimgham office made the wrong call. They said the there was no risk to Alabama from the hurricane. Repeate no risk. Zero risk. At the time, the risk to Alabama was quite small but not zero. Statements by the NWS that the risks were zero were irresponsible.

        • Colin Seftor says:
          0
          0

          You miss my point entirely. I don’t think you (or I) have the necessary expertise to assess the risk. The meteorologists in Birmingham do have that expertise. In their assessment, based on all the data and forecast models (and not just one or two graphs) there was no risk.

          To be blunt, who are you to question that judgment?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, I am a scientist who has a fair grip on things like forecasts for weather forecasts. I can say with complete confidence that they are not 100% reliable. So anyone who says there is NO risk from a hurricane, as the NWS Birmingham did, is going overboard and making dubious claims. Claims of absolute, 100% accuracy are simply lies.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            You may have a “fair grip” on understanding forecast data, but the data you have in hand is incomplete. I’m a scientist too, and I know better than to make risk assessments from incomplete data (and expertise).

            If you and I were asked to sit on a “blue ribbon commission” that was convened to assess whether the meteorologists in the Birmingham office came to the correct conclusion, and we were able to study all of the factors, models, etc that went into their decision as well as interview them to understand how their experience with weather systems in that part of the country influenced their thought processes, then (and only then) would we be in a position to evaluate their decision.

            But, alas, I’m afraid we won’t have that chance.

            (These guys don’t lie. They assess risk, and their assessment was that there was zero percent risk. Despite your protestations, I believe that’s a perfectly acceptable conclusion to a properly performed risk assessment.)

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Which guys are you talking about? National Weather Service Birmingham or the National Hurricane Center? The National Hurricane Center, who I think we should regard as the experts, were predicting a risk of 39 mph sustained winds in Alabama, at the ten or twenty percent level. That was their prediction one hour before the NWS Birmingham tweeted “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama.” Are you saying the NHC was lying about that?

            You do not need to be a meteorologist to know hurricanes can be dangerous even if the eye does not pass directly over you. In fact the NHC charts with the cone and predicted path specifically say that at the top. What they were predicting was a low chance of conditions in Alabama which could cause flooding or knock a tree over on someone’s roof (well, a large limb, at least.) How can you reconcile that with the NWS Birmingham statement of “NOT see any impacts”? If they had said a “small risk of minor impacts” I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the absolute statement was not supported by the predictions of the real experts.

            I may be a bit sensitive to this, because I see scientists making absolute claims (in their own field and specialty) far more often that I like. As often as not, it’s because someone wants a new result to go out in a press release and get some media coverage, and they know that won’t happen if they say “probably.” Or because want to convince other scientists, who aren’t experts, that their idea is right and any competing ideas aren’t even worth thinking about. That really bugs me. So I go out of my way to call people on it when they make unjustified, absolute statements.

            I also think the whole concept of zero risk is a dangerous myth and we shouldn’t be doing anything to reenforce it.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            I am curious. All this seems to be about a press release the Birmingham NWS Office issued. But they only cover the northern part of the state. Has anyone checked the records for the Mobile office that covers the southern part? Just wondering…

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The NWS web page for Mobile/Pensacola doesn’t mention anything (other than a current heat alert), but I can’t find any archive of past statements. They seem to use facebook, but I don’t have an account. But, if NWS Birmingham hadn’t tweeted about all of Alabama, I probably wouldn’t have objected. The National Hurricane Center never even predicted rain from Dorian in Birmingham.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            Interesting question. Given the nature of the internet, my guess (and it’s only a guess) is that, if there were any statements from other NWS offices that contradicted what Birmingham put out, we would have heard about it by now.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            But that is the interesting question, as in the Sherlock Holmes case of “The Dog that didn’t Bark.”

            Being located on the Gulf it’s NWS Mobile that generally puts out statements about hurricanes for Alabama, and even keeps a link to the Tropical Weather on the landing page. NWS Birmingham by contrast is hundreds on miles inland in the mountain foothills of Alabama and is rarely worried about hurricanes. And you are right, if NWS Mobile had put out an out clear on September 1, 2019 it would be circulating online. But instead silence…

            Fcary may well be right about the odd wording being significant.

          • Colin Seftor says:
            0
            0

            First, Alabama was never mentioned in any of the advisories or statements from the NHC.

            Second, you still miss my point. You are drawing conclusions from one chart which was probably generated from a computer model, with input that probably varied greatly in quality. The people at the NHC and in Birmingham had far more information to draw from (and the expertise to interpret that information) in making an assessment, including understanding the quality of the input to the computer models and what to trust and not to trust. In other words, you DO need to be a meteorologist to correctly interpret (and synthesize) everything. (And it further helps if you’ve had years of experience in interpreting the conditions as they relate to the area of interest, in other words I’d trust the Birmingham meteorologists’ assessment of the risk to Alabama over, say, those in DC.)

            They looked at all the information available to them (not just one computer generated chart) and, based on the totality of information they had in hand, they came to the conclusion that there was no (zero) danger. I am in no position to question that, and I happen to think you aren’t either.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m actually looking at a couple dozen maps, showing different things, per forecast with several forecasts per day. They were generated by the experts at the National Hurricane Center, who took all the data and simulations, and synthesized it into plots and charts they expect (or hope) a non-expert can understand, and then they put the on a public web page so non-experts can look at them. If they thought only an expert could understand them, why would they do that? (Note that those spaghetti plots aren’t on that web page, because they aren’t trivial to interpret.) The one I was looking at in particular shows the probability of sustained winds over 39 mph during the period covered by the forecast. For the forecast starting at 8 AM on Sept. 1 (the latest at the time of the NWS Birmingham tweet) it shows about 5-10% for southeastern Alabama. There is nothing ambiguous about that. And reading it doesn’t depend on any knowledge of the models which went into it. That’s what the NHC tries to provide the public.

            No, there weren’t any advisories about Alabama. They have official thresholds for when to issue advisories, watches and warnings. They do not issue advisories any time a risk is greater than zero. If they did, every place in the country would be covered by a dozen of every day. A small but non-zero risk, which is what was predicted for southeastern Alabama on Sept. 1, isn’t enough to cross the threshold for an advisory. That doesn’t mean it’s zero.

            I don’t see what’s so upsetting about saying the NHC was predicting a small but non-zero risk, and the NWS Birmingham shouldn’t have been so absolute in their statement. Should have they made one? Certainly. Given the exaggerated and misleading tweets from Mr. Trump, sending out a “don’t panic” message was absolutely the right thing for them to do. I just think they should have been more careful about the language, avoided making unjustifiably absolute statements, and given the public enough credit to understand words like “small risk” or “minor effects.” If they can’t, we’re in real trouble. That’s the same public that needs to tell which politicians are telling the truth and which are lying, when they vote in elections. (And yes, I do see the irony in what I just wrote…)

        • DiscipleY says:
          0
          0

          “At the time, the risk to [Oaklahoma] was quite small but not zero.Statements by the NWS that the risks were zero were irresponsible.”

          Not being able to tell the future definitively is something we can all agree on, but there is a point at which it becomes a little absurd. Is the absurdity line crossed with Alabama? I’ll chose the professionals in Birmingham to tell me where that line is rather than the man in the high castle.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’d actually trust the National Hurricane Center over the National Weather Service, Birmingham. After all, NHC are our official experts on hurricane predictions. And, yes, at some point, a risk can be so close to zero that the difference isn’t worth mentioning. In this case, the NHC predictions (on the maps they publicly distribute) show 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, etc. Which means, at least to me, they decided on 5%, and anything below that isn’t worth mentioning.

            But, if that’s the official standard, why did NWS Birmingham say there was zero risk anywhere in Alabama, when the NHC predictions showed 5-10% in southeastern Alabama? Maybe that sounds like quibbling, but it would actually have saved them a lot of pain. That anonymous NOAA slap-down could point to their speaking “in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.” And, technically and by their own standards, that’s true.

            That’s actually the danger of those unqualified statements by experts. If you exaggerate the certainty of your statements, then someone can dispute it. That’s how people can claim anthropomorphic climate change isn’t real. Climate scientists can and have made statements implying absolute certainty, when their actual research doesn’t support that. So someone can point that out and use it against them. I think the public can understand “less than 10% odds of winds blowing down trees” or “more than 90% odds of climate change being man-made.” So why insist on saying 0% and 100%?

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        Yep, many here are debating if there was a risk or not and neglecting that things happened in a certain order. It seems some Trump supporters want to take something in the future and use it to justify something in the past. Then to segue into justifying an inability to say “we stand corrected”, and to segue further into justifying ego over-riding experts (what the boss says etc.)

        This is a micro-version of the inconsistent, shifting goal-posts used by climate change deniers. First, say scientist’s should stick to “what”, to science, not to policy on “how” to address human caused climate change. Then once someone asks “how” we will address the adverse effects of human activity on the climate, shift gears, change the topic! Say the science is still out. When the reports ALL contradict this, go back to step 1, saying scientists should avoid policy. Ad nausea, in inconsistent circles and delay. As Sinclair put so well, it’s impossible to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding.

        It’s a sad state we are in for sure.

      • mfwright says:
        0
        0

        Yeow, this has become quite a discussion. Overall it adds more confusion as in the days before Trump posting hurricane path predictions has all sorts of outcomes for the general public. Should people evacuate? Stop what you are doing right now and bug out of town is costly (also economic loss in community, accidents during evacuation, thieves plundering vacant homes and businesses). But wait, what if storm changes direction at last minute? Or wait it out which has its issues. Now we have dubious feeling from government agency and leaders in addition to arguing among ourselves.

        Only thing I fault with Birmingham office is them saying “100%” instead of posting very very unlikely of Dorian impact. However, it may have been a quick call by one of their people because they probably got a flood of calls and emails from people that couldn’t evacuate anyway (not enough gas in car, will get fired from work, car probably breakdown anyway).

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I agree completely. And the response from NOAA should have been a politely worded and completely internal memo to NWS Birmingham, saying something like, “Please be more careful about saying absolutely nothing will happen when you really mean that the odds of even minor impacts are low.” The public and anonymous statement that NWS Birmingham was completely wrong was, in my opinion, inappropriate and actually harmful.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Agree!

  9. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    As a scientist, I have to take exception with that. Normally, “derived from” means more than just sketching with a marker. It’s supposed to mean some sort of rigorous calculation. And the whole phrase “actual projection data” doesn’t make sense to me. Projections aren’t actual data. Actual data are measurements, and projections are things calculated from those measurements.

    The people who know how to derive projections from actual data took it as far as they could, and that wasn’t all the way into Alabama. Then someone drew in a guess based on who knows what. I don’t think that contributes to Americans’ safety. It means the people in Alabama will be less likely to take the next warning seriously, and that’s harmful not helpful.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      The NHC is very clear on the subject of data predictions. They’ve stated over and over that the advances in predicting hurricane strength are dramatic, and quite useful; and that course predictions beyond 3 days are often a crap shoot. And, they provide, with every update, a very useful ‘Discussion’, summarizing the consensual thinking. In this case, professional thinking on the issue of course has been consistently reasoned.

      Anyone extending the ‘Cone of Uncertainty’ to show Alabama simply did not read the publicly available explanation on why the course was so darn unpredictable.

      Misuse of the data isn’t helpful.

  10. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    Sadly, if we have a real crisis this shows us that trump may react to yesterday’s briefing and not even ask about current information. How much of his decision making will be based on old information? Then if he makes a decision based on incorrect information we can see that he will try to clumsily cover it up instead of asking for correct information.

  11. Colin Seftor says:
    0
    0

    1) A human being (who happens to be President) goofed by saying a state was in danger when it wasn’t.

    2) Rather than owning up to the mistake like any normal, rational human being would do (look, we all goof, it’s the definition of being human) and moving on, he drags things out for days (and days), insisting he wasn’t wrong.

    3) He compounds the problem by having one of his appointees in a government agency put out a statement (anonymously, I might add) gainsaying the agency’s scientists who, quite properly, said the state was in no danger.

    4) The credibility of these scientists has now been damaged, and their job of informing the public of danger in future weather-related events just became a whole lot harder.

    And you really, truly, don’t see a problem with this?

    (I’m pretty sure that we’ll see a full report of what happened in the briefings. This administration leaks like a sieve. We already know that Trump was the one who used a sharpie to “enhance” a Weather Service graphic and then he showed it to the public as if people wouldn’t notice. What a juvenile! But you probably don’t see a problem with this either.)

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I tend to agree with you, but I’m not sure I would place the blame in the same way. The President and the White House staff definitely made mistakes by putting their guesses on a chart and showing it. But I don’t think that grotesque error proves criminal fraud. I think it is about being stupid and clueless. And possibly egotistical. If you want to accuse the Trump administration of crimes, I would not complain. But let’s make those accusations be solid and factual.

  12. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    I followed the link above. Tropical force winds are 39mph and above. The link suggests that for a couple of days a small part of inland Alabama was predicted on this particular model of having a change of less than 30% of having winds exceeding 39 MPH. This isn’t significant risk of hurricane damage.

    However even this was never part of any official prediction, and I was watching the consensus models every day. We would have to be pretty naive to imagine that Trump ever even saw this model. He made a mistake and faked a map to claim that he was right. The official prediction map he altered did not show the possibility of tropical force winds. It showed the region over which it was considered possible that the _center_ of the hurricane would pass.

    Trump then demanded that our government back up his false statement. This is the real issue. I agree that no one can ever say with 100% certainty that a storm will not go in an unpredicted direction. However in this case NOAA never predicted that the hurricane would impact Alabama, and the NOAA official was fully justified in making this point clear. Trump claimed that such a prediction had been made, a statement that was blatantly false, He then faked official documents to make it appear as though what he had said was true. He then forced government officials to support his ridiculous misstatements. This is more than a personal misstatement by the President. This is the use of presidential power to force government officials to support false claims by the president, creating official lies that overwhelm the truth.

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      Precisely, Dr. Woodard! I want to add that Trump celebrated his own, willful ignorance. Trump stated more than a couple times…. “who has ever heard of a Category 5”. Several times, he repeats the same inane musing… No one in his staff dares to “educate” the fool. Sheesh.

    • DiscipleY says:
      0
      0

      “Creating official lies that overwhelm the truth.”
      Fascism at its best.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        The immortal words of Mr. Nixon, in his interview with David Frost:

        When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.

  13. Skinny_Lu says:
    0
    0

    Yes, go ahead and laugh it off. It would be funny to me also, if we did not have an idiot running the country.

  14. Jason Clemons says:
    0
    0

    Yes, but Trump’s statement on 9/1 was “…Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated…”

    Here’s the same map you’re using as evidence on 9/1. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    • tjimmel says:
      0
      0

      This is exactly the picture that everyone had when the Alabama statements were made.

      Birmingham NWS had no room for some mealymouthed “minimal chance” “low probability” statement when all caps OMG HURRICANE was being tweeted. “No impact” is exactly the right language.

      Scientists are asked all the time to stop being so analytical and speaking in probabilities. On Sept 1, after days of following Dorian, if one was asked if Alabama should be bracing for a terrible hurricane, the answer is absolutely not.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        “Scientists are asked all the time to stop being so analytical and speaking in probabilities.”

        Actually, being analytical and speaking about details and probabilities is a fundamental part of being a scientist. That’s really the difference between science and natural philosophy.

        • tjimmel says:
          0
          0

          Save the lecture.

          The hurricane could have, however unlikely, turned around and headed to Cancun. Highly improbable, but you know, could have happened, so get a Sharpie out and draw that, too. Why not?

          The NHC process has become one of the remarkable products of modern weather forecasting efforts. Once it became quite clear the hurricane was moving up the coast, which is exactly what it did, you could actually say it is going to move up the coast. Period. And that’s what the NHC forecast said, a forecast that comes from years of scientific validation and improvements, and “Well, you never know!” is just contrarian and silly.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          The degree to which science lives in the world of probabilities is not well known. Likely this is for the best.

  15. chuckc192000 says:
    0
    0

    The early models of the hurricane did show some paths heading toward Alabama. This is probably where Trump got his information, so it’s not like he made that part up. But I DO fault Trump for the following:

    – Not keeping up with the latest hurricane reports so he wouldn’t make pronouncements using out-of-date information.

    – Becoming obsessed with proving he was right to the point of neglecting the hurricane current situation and other important matters.

    – Modifying the map with a sharpie to prove he was right, then lying about being the one who did it.

  16. Winner says:
    0
    0

    This sort of thing should scare the shit out of all of us.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Do mean in the sense that this presidential behavior is emblematic for the larger world of decisions that he must make? That is how I take the situation, and yes, it is terrifying.

      I’m comforted, though, that he won the popular vote by huge margins, and that crowds welcoming him as their new president were bigger than any other in history.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        3 million illegal voters voted 100% for Clinton and Trump still won… the popular vote and that other vote. Believe me!

  17. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    C’MON MAN?!M

  18. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross Wilbur Ross

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      At least one paper has reported that the order to do something about the NWS Birmingham tweet came from Trump.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Yeah I definitely believe that since he can’t stand losing face or being called out on a mistake no matter how small to the point where he has double down and sharpie an odd extra line to match his previous statement. This probably happens a lot and just isn’t as public as this time. It’s childish, and also stupid and narcissistic to think that would work and the public would either believe him or just be ok with whatever he says. “Believe me”

        Wilbur Ross at this point isn’t going to stand up for something (imagine that). He is tied to Trump and will do what he says.

  19. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Yeah but this is an indication of the how the man thinks and it’s utterly ridiculous.

    He doesn’t care about other people, because he will just sharpie an extra line somewhere on a projection map for an impending hurricane landfall. NWS has to do their absolute best because it’s a hurricane and life and death for some people. Trump doesn’t care about all that. He cares about looking good, having other people favor him, and saving face.

    He also thinks he is smart and other people are stupid, or other people are follower sheep that believe him over truth, because for some reason he thinks marking that extra line would go over well and save face for himself.

    There are other examples of this. We witness the issue about the inauguration crowd size and others that are fairly public and just absurd. But no doubt there are more serious issues in governing the country that are affected and the country suffers for it.