President Trump Damages U.S. Weather Prediction--But He Had Help

During the past week, there has been non-stop media coverage of Trump's  problematic foray into weather forecasting.

But what has not been covered is the damage done to NOAA and the future potential of U.S. weather prediction by this incident.  And the potential damage to the careers of some exceptional public servants caught in the undertow.  Or real evaluation of what Trump said about Dorian.

Although Trump, his chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are prime villains in this story, some of the media, the political world, and even some in my community made the whole situation much worse than it had to be.   There are a lot of subtleties being missed in the public domain--so let me provide my take on it.

Trump works by doing outrageous things, getting lots of attention, provoking an excessive reaction from the other side, which he points to as proof he was right.  And on and on.  All kinds of folks start fighting each other, innocent individuals get hurt, and national interests are undermined.

Trump's Forecast

This unfortunate interlude began with Trump's tweet on Sept. 1st, in which he suggested that South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama would be hit much harder than expected by Dorian.   Now the forecast had changed before his tweet, with the storm moving northward towards the Carolinas.  So he was partially correct.  But what he said about Alabama was wrong-- with the new track Alabama had a sharply reduced threat.

Within 20 minutes of Trump's tweet, the Alabama NWS responded (they are in central time).

They make a strong blanket statement that Dorian would have no impacts on Alabama.  If they had said that there was a high probability that there would be no significant impacts, they would have been in an unassailable position.  But their wording left them open to criticism for two reasons.  

First, the most up to date forecasts on Sunday morning had a slight probability (5-10%) of tropical storm winds  reaching Alabama (see below)

Second, and even more important, as the storm passed there WERE modest impacts on Alabama, with winds gusting to around 25 mph.  Below is the proof, showing the maximum winds on September 5th.  The ovals indicate the areas of gusty winds reaching 25 mph over Alabama (click to enlarge).  And sinking air forced by the storm resulted in several daily temperature record being broken in Alabama.  So the impacts were minor (perhaps a few broken branches), but if one was talking literally, there were impacts of the storm.

And why did the Birmingham NWS forecaster provide a prediction for the entire state when his/her responsibilities were solely for the northern area around Birmingham?  Established NWS protocols were not followed.

You would think that there was not enough "meat on the bone" for this Alabama forecast business to have any traction, but that was not the case.   Many media sources went nuts, with all kinds of stories making fun of Trump.  And how he was undermining weather prediction, etc.  Just a bit too much (see below)

This was revved up even further, when Trump appeared to be unfamiliar with the occurrences of category five hurricanes during recent years (there have been a few):

“I knew it existed, and I’ve seen some Category 4s ― you don’t even see them that much ― but a Category 5 is something that I don’t know that I’ve ever even heard the term other than I know it’s there,” he told reporters.

It is clear that the President is uninformed about hurricanes--and he made a mistake on the Alabama threat.  But the media went into hyper mocking mode and tried to score some points on him...and this President doesn't like to be mocked and went into full defense mode. 

What makes the media reaction so overblown is that no one takes Trump's forecasts seriously, not even the most strident Republicans.  I confirmed this by asking a few enthusiastic Trump supporters.  They love the guy because he is bull in the national china shop--but for weather predictions, they trust the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center.

Sharpiegate

The next stage of this sad drama occurred on Wednesday, when President Trump talked about the hurricane and used an OLD National Hurricane Center uncertainty chart (see below).  I mean really old (the previous Thursday).   He was basically saying (correctly) that the previous track took the storm into Florida and the Gulf, but the latest predictions swung the storm north.  What he said was true.  But there was a line going into Alabama on the original map suggesting an extension into the Florida Panhandle and a bit of Alabama.  He never discussed it.

But that unmentioned line cause the media and some others to go wild, claiming he was deceiving the public, illegally altering official NOAA charts, and more.    This reaction was totally excessive and was meant to put Trump on the defensive.

But if someone knew anything about some uncertainty charts, that line was not unreasonable if it refereed to the path of the hurricane at the time the chart was released.   If the storm HAD followed the path shown, the storm might well have gone into Alabama.   In fact, the ensembles of many forecast at that forecast initialization time (Thursday morning, August 29th), DID have trajectories going into Alabama (see below), which Trump actually did mention.  He was right about that.

But now the media was going in full-tilt Trump mocking mode, particularly CNN.  A lot of it was simply unfair.   And their continuous attempts to embarrass him, particularly on the Alabama business, led to something far more serious.

According to the NY Times,  Trump told his Chief of Staff, Mike Mulvaney to have NOAA deal with the situation and particularly to "clarify" or publicly correct the forecasters' position.  Mulvaney then called Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, who in turn telephoned Neil Jacobs, Acting Administrator of NOAA.   The NY Times sources then suggest that Ross told Jacobs to fix the situation, threaten to fire Jacobs and others if something wasn't done.  Ross denies giving such threats.

Neil Jacob's Dilemma

Dr. Neil Jacobs, who is now running NOAA, is a very good scientist and an expert on numerical weather prediction.  He is not political, but extraordinarily dedicated to improving U.S. weather prediction.  He is the change agent that NOAA has needed for a long time.  And I am not saying this in ignorance--I know him quite well and have worked with him for years, including at his previous position as lead weather scientist at Panasonic.  But he is a young man without extensive experience in DC and dealing with its shark-filled political waters.

Neil Jacobs

According to the NY Times, he pushed back on Ross' demands.  But he was under great pressure.  What should he do?  Neil knew that the Trump administrator was supportive of improving U.S. weather prediction (as are legislators on BOTH sides of the aisle).    So should he resign or publicly oppose the President, and jeopardize the potential to enhance weather prediction, which would save lives and property?  Or should he write an innocuous statement that was completely true and one that any real meteorologist would immediately know was meaningless, but would satisfy the weather-ignorant in the Trump administration?

You might disagree with the latter approach, but that is what Neal did--hoping to protect the long-term progress of US weather prediction.   Here is the statement that NOAA released on Friday

Let's examine it.    The first paragraph is completely correct--the National Hurricane Center guidance DID have a chance (admittedly a small one) of tropical storm force winds getting over Alabama.   And the Birmingham NWS forecasters said there would be NO IMPACTS and did not qualify the risks properly (impacts of what?, suggesting the chances were zero % rather than the predicted 5-10%).      Quite honestly, I have been at a number of professional meetings on this very topic, where forecasters are advised to use probabilities more and not to communicate risks as 0 or 100%.

This statement is like a dentist telling you that you did a great job on cleaning your teeth, but forgot to floss one tooth.

So Neil's approach was a clever way of not really criticizing the forecasters seriously but seeming to say something in the minds of the uninitiated.  I smiled when I read it.

OK, perhaps he should have called NWS Director Louis Uccellini and NOAA AOR Head Craig McClean and others to create a pact where they would all stand up to the Trump folks--but such an approach had risks with such an unsteady and unpredictable group in the White House.  What he did was not unreasonable and not unhonorable.  And he is getting severely criticized in some quarters for it....unfairly I believe.

The Knives Come Out

The NOAA statement caused a firestorm, both inside and outside of NOAA with folks suggesting it represented a profound attack on NOAA's independence, of unethical behavior from NOAA leadership, a degradation of NWS forecasters and worse.  Some individuals inside of NOAA, who should have understood the dynamics of the situation and what Neil was trying to do, took out the knives.

Just classic Trump---he stresses an agency or group until the good guys start turning on each other, producing the bedlam that is his hallmark.   And the impacts are profoundly bad for the American people.

On Tuesday, Neil talked to the professional group encompassing many National Weather Service forecasters (the National Weather Association).  Instead of discussing the key innovation he was working on to improve U.S. numerical weather prediction (the EPIC center), he spent his time giving an emotional talk about the importance of forecasters in the National Weather Service.  Everyone listened respectfully and at the end his received polite applause.  But the momentum to make U.S. weather prediction a world leader again has been greatly lessened.

It is time for my community to come together, stop attacking each other about how we deal with Trump, and get back to work making U.S. weather prediction the best in the world.   And I hope that political leadership in both parties will protect people like Neil Jacobs, whose only goal is to serve the American people in such a critical capability for the nation.  The battle between Trump and his opponents is loud and energetic, but NOAA should not be caught in the middle and end up collateral damage.