By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Effective July 31st, the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center ceased sharing satellite weather data with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). This transition is permanent, and is a result of the phasing out of the aging DMSP system, which had been providing NOAA with crucial global imagery of weather patterns. NOAA will now rely on data from the newer Weather System Follow-on Microwave (WSF-M) and Electro-Optical Weather System (EWS) to ensure ongoing weather monitoring capabilities. While the loss of DMSP data may seem impactful, it is part of a larger modernization effort to provide more accurate weather predictions.
Read the original article here
The Navy is changing the way it shares satellite weather data with NOAA, and it’s causing quite a stir. But what’s really happening here? Let’s break it down and see if we can get to the bottom of things.
The crux of the matter is this: the Navy is phasing out an older weather data system, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), and replacing it with a more advanced one called the Weather System Follow-on Microwave (WSF-M) and the Electro-Optical Weather System (EWS). The DMSP, having outlived its usefulness, is no longer being used and thus the data from the old system is no longer being shared. It’s a modernization effort, aiming to provide more precise and reliable environmental monitoring. This is meant to improve the ability to predict weather events, including those powerful tropical cyclones.
Now, it’s easy to see how a headline about the Navy stopping data sharing with NOAA can raise alarm bells. Especially when we’re talking about weather data – something crucial for public safety, particularly when it comes to things like flash floods and hurricanes. It’s understandable to be concerned that essential warning systems are being dismantled, especially in the face of increasing extreme weather events.
One of the main worries seems to stem from the timing of all this. The political landscape often influences how we interpret these decisions, and some have raised concerns that this move could be related to climate change skepticism. It’s a fair point to consider. If the government doesn’t fully acknowledge the realities of climate change, they might be less inclined to invest in or prioritize things that are crucial for understanding and responding to climate-related disasters. The suggestion of cutting climate change initiatives from the budget certainly adds to the concerns.
However, it is worth noting NOAA’s explanation of all this: The transition to the WSF-M and EWS represents a modernization effort aimed at providing more resilient and enhanced environmental monitoring capabilities to improve our ability to understand and predict weather phenomena, including tropical cyclones. They also mentioned the upgrade will pinpoint weather data more exactly. This is supposed to lead to better forecasts, not worse ones. And, there is some speculation that the new WSF-M system will give a more accurate picture of weather, including sea ice, soil moisture and snow depth, as well as measure winds and collect cyclone data.
The crux of the confusion and concerns is that an old system is being replaced with a new system. The Navy knows how important weather data is for its operations, and it makes sense that they would want the best tools available. The new system is designed to do just that.
Of course, there are still legitimate concerns about potential negative consequences. What happens if the new system isn’t as effective as promised? What about the people who rely on these forecasts for their livelihoods, like those in the maritime industry? And let’s not forget the families and communities who are vulnerable to severe weather events. The ability to prepare and respond to these events depends on the accuracy and timeliness of weather warnings, and any disruption to that process can have serious repercussions.
In the end, the truth of the matter is usually not a simple one. The change in data sharing may indeed be a positive step. But it is also a point of concern. It’s natural to be concerned when vital services are being overhauled. But hopefully, the new systems will provide even more accurate and timely warnings.