Challenging Bill Proenza's QuikSCAT numbers

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:04 PM GMT on July 04, 2007

A political storm engulfed the National Hurricane Center this week, with a majority of the senior hurricane forecasters calling for Bill Proenza's removal as director. The most visible issue revolved around the extraordinary focus on the aging QuikSCAT satellite. The public argument put forth by Mr. Proenza was that QuikSCAT data was so vital to hurricane track forecasting that without it, track forecast errors would increase significantly, leading to larger warning areas and increased costs for evacuation and emergency planning.

Focus on QuikSCAT--out of proportion?
On March 16th Proenza went public with the QuikSCAT concerns and associated statistics for the first time, stating that "two- and three-day forecasts of a storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be 10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up to 16 percent," with the conclusion," that would mean longer stretches of coastline would have to be placed under warnings, and more people than necessary would have to evacuate." As a result of these comments, a perception arose in the public and among lawmakers that without QuikSCAT, NHC would not be able to provide accurate hurricane forecasts. Legislation was hastily introduced into both the House and Senate to provide an immediate replacement for the $375 million satellite.

Proenza's statements raised several questions: 1) Why the focus on track forecast errors in landfalling situations, when QuikSCAT was widely known to be used in intensity forecasting and for tropical cyclones too far at sea to be accessed by the Hurricane Hunters? 2) Could such specific and significant gains in track forecast error truly be attributed to QuikSCAT? Where did these numbers come from, and why was no uncertainty being attached to them?

Since QuikSCAT data became available, starting in 1999, average track errors for 48-hour and 72-hour forecasts have been reduced by 43 miles and 62 miles respectively. Fully one quarter of this improvement was being attributed by Proenza to QuikSCAT. This was an extraordinary performance increase to attribute to one satellite, and seemed doubtful.

We find out where the QuikSCAT numbers came from
In mid-June, Margie Kieper and I asked Proenza to comment on how he got his QuikSCAT numbers. He cited an unpublished study, "A Two Season Impact Study of Four Satellite Data Types and Rawinsonde Data in the NCEP Global Data Assimilation System", by Tom H. Zapotocny, James A. Jung, John F. LeMarshall and Russ E. Treadon. I contacted one of the authors, who informed me that the study was submitted for publication on January 26, 2007, and accepted for publication in the journal Weather and Forecasting on May 23, 2007. It will probably appear in the October-November time frame, according to the publisher. This raises an immediate problem, since only a privileged few are able to read unpublished research. This limits the possibilities for an informed debate on the issue, and basing important policy decisions on unpublished research is thus normally to be avoided. However, making accurate hurricane forecasts is important enough that such considerations can be excused. Proenza didn't give me any details on the study, other than the fact that QuikSCAT data improved 72-hour and 48-hour hurricane track forecasts by 16% and 10% respectively, for a select group of storms from the 2003 hurricane season. One of the authors graciously sent me a copy of the study, though, and after reading it, I had these observations:

1). The study looked at a very limited number of cases over a six-week period during 2003--only 19 cases were available for 72 hour forecasts. The 19 cases were not 19 storms, just 19 separate forecasts from the 4 hurricanes and 2 tropical storms that occurred during the 6-week study period. This sample is too small to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of the QuikSCAT on tropical cyclone forecasts. The two longest-lived storms during the test period were Fabian and Isabel, storms that spent the majority of their lifetimes far away from land. Since the quality of the observing network increases close to land, particulary when reconnaissance data from the Hurricane Hunters is available, it is reasonable to conclude that the impact of the QuikSCAT data for storms within 72 hours of landfall would be less than for the sample as a whole. The study was not primarily designed to study tropical cyclone track accuracy, so there was no separation out of the cases we really care about--storms 72 hours or less from landfall.

2). The study was done with only one model, the GFS. NHC official forecasts make use of several models, including the GFDL, UKMET, NOGAPS and ECMWF. Consequently, a change in the accuracy of a single model will have only a partial effect on NHC official forecast accuracy. As far as I know, there have not been studies done of the impact of QuikSCAT on tropical cyclone forecasts in the GFDL, UKMET or the ECMWF models. Past studies on the impact of dropsonde data from the Hurricane Hunters, however, show that the GFDL is less sensitive to these data than the GFS is.

3). When I attended the AMS hurricane conference in May 2006 in Monterey, I came across a poster presentation by Dr. Jim Goerss that evaluated the impact of QuikSCAT on the NOGAPS model. His study was far more comprehensive, and included 12 hurricanes, 5 typhoons, and 7 tropical storms from a 6-week period in 2004. The number of cases was 212 at 72 hours, eleven times as many as the study Proenza cites. Dr. Goerss found that QuikSCAT probably improved 24-hour track forecasts by 2.5% (90% confidence of this), but at all other forecast times (48, 72, 96, and 120 hours), QuikSCAT had no statistically significant effect (i.e., zero effect).

It is hard to compare the results from these two studies, since they used two different data assimilation systems. We do not know if they used all the data, or how they treated the vertical impact of the data. The uncertainties are high, and Proenza's simple statement that QuikSCAT data improves hurricane tracks forecasts by 10% and 16% is unreasonable, without at least making mention that these numbers are highly uncertain.

I believe that NHC official forecasts for landfalling storms in the Atlantic would not be significantly affected by the loss of the QuikSCAT satellite. I can't think of a hurricane scientist out there who would defend using a study with only 19 cases that didn't focus on landfalling storms, to make the case Proenza is making--particularly in light of the data from the unpublished Goerss study showing no effect of QuikSCAT data on NOGAPS model tropical cyclone track errors. Proenza should have at least attached some measure of uncertainty to his numbers, which he did not.

One could argue that the study cited by Proenza has undergone peer review, and is thus the only scientific study one can use to make arguments on QuikSCAT's effectiveness. The Goerss study has not been published in a journal, and has not undergone peer review. However, Proenza was making his QuikSCAT accuracy arguments in March, two months before the Zapotocny study he cited had been accepted for publication.

QuikSCAT misconceptions
The numbers pushed by Proenza have led to some potentially serious misconceptions about QuikSCAT. The Congressional Record has this to say about QuikSCAT:

"A single plane gathering data is like a tiny fishing line collecting data only along the single strand of the line. The satellite, on the other hand, provides rich, detailed data horizontally from one side of the storm to the other side, and vertically, from the ocean surface to the top of the storms swirling winds. The QuikSCAT is like a detailed MRI."

Well, QuikSCAT is not like an MRI, it just measures the ocean surface winds. In a letter written by Representatives Melancon and Klein in support of H.R. 2531, there are comments that data from the reconnaissance aircraft are inferior to the data from the QuikSCAT:

"Short-term options for replacing QuikSCAT include hurricane hunter aircraft, buoys, and foreign satellites--all of which will collectively produce inferior data."

There is not a hurricane forecaster anywhere that would trade hurricane hunter data for QuikSCAT. Lawmakers may start cutting aircraft reconnaissance with misconceptions like this. That would be a disaster.

I would hate to lose the QuikSCAT satellite, and have been calling for a replacement since before Mr. Proenza came on the job. QuickSCAT data is invaluable in identifying weak systems and in defining storm structure, particularly of outer wind radii of 34 knots and 50 knots. This is particularly true outside of the Atlantic, where there are no Hurricane Hunter flights, and in the Atlantic beyond where the Hurricane Hunters can reach. Track forecasts for tropical cyclones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans may benefit from QuikSCAT data, since Hurricane Hunter information is not available. QuikSCAT also helps identify when a tropical depression or tropical storm is intensifying.

Besides hurricanes, the QuickSCAT data is invaluable to the Ocean Prediction Center, which now issues hurricane force wind warnings for extratropical storms in the Atlantic and Pacific. Search and rescue missions, and the U.S. Navy also greatly benefit from QuikSCAT. QuikSCAT should be replaced, but not due to a rush knee-jerk reaction that will get us a replacement with old technology. NHC needs a "next-generation" scatterometer, one that has greatly improved capabilities to help tackle the structure and intensity problem. We should take our time, and deal with a gap in coverage, if it gets us an instrument that has higher resolution, higher saturation speed, and is not adversely affected by rain. Such a gap would not put the public at risk.

It greatly troubles me that the most visible and admired member of my profession has failed to use good science in his arguments for funding a replacement of the QuikSCAT satellite. The Director of the National Hurricane Center needs to be an able politician and good communicator, but being truthful with the science is a fundamental requirement of the job as well. Mr. Proenza has misrepresented the science on the QuikSCAT issue, and no longer has my support as director of the National Hurricane Center.

Other critical concerns--lost in the hubbub?
We strongly support many of the valid concerns Proenza has raised. Of particular concern are the slashing of critical research funding for the Joint Hurricane Testbed (JHT) from $1.7 million to $1 million, and the lack of adequate yearly increases to the National Hurricane Center budget. Both of these important concerns still remain to be addressed; they were quickly overshadowed by a frantic campaign by lawmakers to fund a new QuikSCAT satellite. The JHT provides the means for promising research to be tested in the NHC operational environment, usually resulting in a successful transition to an operational product at NHC. This program has been extremely successful, and its budget should have been increased, not slashed. As hurricane activity has increased dramatically over the last twelve years, NHC's budget should have increased accordingly, but it did not.

Proenza also raised legitimate concerns about NOAA's effort to promote their "Corporate Identity" by renaming the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service. The new organizations would be called the "NOAA Hurricane Center" and the "NOAA Weather Service". He also justly complained about NOAA's plan to spend between $1.5 million and $4 million on a "bogus" 200-year NOAA anniversary celebration.

While wanting to take a neutral stand as to whether to call for Proenza's dismissal, Senior NHC Hurricane Specialist Lixion Avila clearly shares the concerns that have been put forth by the other senior forecasters Richard Pasch, James Franklin, and Richard Knabb, and former director Max Mayfield. Avila noted, "If I [was] the director of the hurricane center, I would not spend my time fighting for QuikSCAT--I would be fighting to make sure that the reconnaissance planes are always there." That leaves a vacationing Jack Beven as the only senior hurricane forecaster to not comment publicly on the issue. Max Mayfield has refrained from making public comments on the deteriorating situation these past months, but all of his comments in the Miami Herald article lend support for the hurricane forecast staff. Given his previous experience in the position of NHC Director and his successful tenure, his feedback counts tremendously.

With the busiest part of hurricane season just a few weeks away, expect a decision on Bill Proenza's tenure to be made soon.

Jeff Masters and Margie Kieper

Having lost the support of most of his senior forecasters, and having misrepresented the science on the importance of the QuikSCAT satellite on hurricane forecasts, it would be best for Mr. Proenza to step down as director of the National Hurricane Center.

--Jeff Masters

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 364 - 314

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44Blog Index

364. IKE
4:51 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
There's always a chance when the NHC says....

For the North Atlantic...Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico...

A well-defined low pressure area over the central Atlantic Ocean is
located about 1100 miles east of the southern Windward Islands
moving westward at 10 to 15 mph.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
363. moonlightcowboy
9:48 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Drakoen, that's why I was wondering earlier if the expanding windfield would help fight off the dry air and allow some evap/moisture to slowly build. I mean, it's a tiny lil system, so every lil drop counts.

I'm with you, I think, lil chances, but still chances nonetheless.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
362. Drakoen
9:51 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
the SAL get weaker to the west.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
361. katadman
9:46 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Goodnight all. Thanks, JFlorida, for responding to my question earlier.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
360. IKE
4:50 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
Posted By: WPBHurricane05 at 4:49 PM CDT on July 04, 2007.
TEACHING his CHILDREN how to set off fireworks in their HANDS!

The law needed to be called on that.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
359. eye
9:49 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
nash, take a cold shower, now you are making stuff up for us to agree with you....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
358. msphar
9:47 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
96L choked on the SAL today. But now the SA shear has woken up and is disrupting the future path of the phoenix of 96L if there is one. Bye bye birdie.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
357. WPBHurricane05
5:47 PM EDT on July 04, 2007
TEACHING his CHILDREN how to set off fireworks in their HANDS!

I would have to agree with that nash. That is just pure stupidity.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
356. Drakoen
9:47 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
also some moisture if returning to the windfield if you look at the loop carefully.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
354. Drakoen
9:46 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
1 more hour maybe less till nightime.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
353. Drakoen
9:44 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
a small area of ocnvection over the coc
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
352. IKE
4:45 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
Maybe you should move out in the country Nash.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
351. moonlightcowboy
9:41 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
lol, Chicklit...I've had both a few times myself, but it's been a great, showing my age, too!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
350. eye
9:43 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
nice edit nash
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
349. nash28
9:40 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
I have NO problem with fireworks displays at a public event, like we have here in St. Pete and Tampa. None whatsoever. Those are done carefully, over the water on barges and are beautiful to watch.

My problem is with the 17 beer drunk assmonkey who has two truckloads of sh*t that rivals the Independence Day film effects, and thinks it's ok to just light 'em all up.

If anyone cannot understand that, please email me... We should chat.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
348. Chicklit
9:38 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Ivansurvivor: I think Nash might be partaking of libations a bit...of course he wouldn't like "spic" remarks, either...But I'm not getting into it. That's an administrative issue. Just think it's a bit prejudicial to be callin' people names...Say you're sorry Nash.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
347. nash28
9:38 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Get pissed if you want, but it's the truth. Yes, I have a serious problem with folks who are buying fireworks that are used in professional displays, setting them off in their driveways, making the foundation of your house shake as they launch and not giving a DAMN about the neighborhood.

So, I guess if you are one of those people, grow up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
345. WPBHurricane05
5:37 PM EDT on July 04, 2007
The rain isn't stopping the fireworks in West Palm. Will be waiting for the 9:00 PM display that my neighborhood shows.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
344. Ivansurvivr
5:27 PM EDT on July 04, 2007
I,being of proud southern heritage (A REDNECK) would like to donate $17,000 to any of my fellow countrymen in the Tampa area who would like to celebrate our proud American independence as late as they would like. I guess God agrees because the afternoon seabreeze thunderstorms headed eastward. GOD BLESS AMERICA @ HAVE A HAPPY 4TH!!!!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
343. Chicklit
9:37 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Mogan David 2020 was always good, too.
Hmmm. Multi-colored upchucks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
341. Chicklit
9:36 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
That's what I drank in high school...there now, you know my age!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
340. moonlightcowboy
9:34 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
I didn't think they still made Boone's :)
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
339. Chicklit
9:30 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
I say ban all fireworks for adding pollution to the atmosphere. And while you're at it, ban circuses for making idiots out of elephants, too...
I'm impressed that forecasters are still giving 96L a chance for formation...
Drak I think mentioned last night something about a front moving somewhere making conditions more favorable, but it's appearing kind of like trying to set a log on fire with a cigarette...Unless you've got some Boone's Farm to pour over it, you're sleepin' in the cold.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
338. RL3AO
4:32 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
524 PM EDT WED JUL 4 2007

524 PM EDT WED JUL 4 2007




CNN is saying the National Mall has been evacuated.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
337. nash28
9:30 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Jflorida- It amazes me that some of these "people" and I use the term loosely are seen with a cigarette (and I smoke) dangling from their mouths, in the driveway with a MORTAR SHELL, showing little Ricky Bobby how to light it with a Zippo in their hand.

Now, tell me that isn't utter redneck.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
336. nash28
9:29 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
As far as I am concerned, you wanna see a good fireworks show in FL?? Go to Epcot on the 4th. Now THAT is one hell of a display!! Done by PROFESSIONALS over WATER!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
335. JupiterFL
9:25 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
$17000 is a little bit much and I drink Southern Comfort not Boones. Even installed a cupholder on my lawnmower so that when I do have gas I can enjoy the process.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
334. PensacolaBuoy
4:27 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
Cell with tornadic history headed toward central Washington D.C. Now's a good time to evacuate the capital building... get everyone onto the mall.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
333. nash28
9:27 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
It's like cavemen for crying out loud! When did the nations birthday become an excuse for getting plastered and buying stuff that goes boom???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
332. nash28
9:26 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
No, not pissed really.... Just get pissed at these folks who think they are pyrotechnical engineers every year and literally DAMN NEAR BURN DOWN someones house because they only have seven brain cells.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
331. nash28
9:24 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
JFLORIDA- It is damn near an open wave at this point. It is cooked.... Believe me, I wanted this to develop, so we could have SOMETHING to track and discuss... Just not in the cards... I am sure we will have plenty of nasty ones to discuss as the season rolls on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
330. JupiterFL
9:22 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
WPB I wasn't comparing it to Katrina. Just simply answering the question posed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
329. IKE
4:24 PM CDT on July 04, 2007
Posted By: nash28 at 4:22 PM CDT on July 04, 2007.
Yeah I noticed... And no offense to you backyard firework lovers, but I HOPE AND PRAY for a COMPLETE deluge in the Tampa area ALL NIGHT tonight. My dog is beside herself with every little pop.

Hope it rains everyone out.. Screw em. They should be illegal anyways. Most of these folks are Boones Farm drunk rednecks who never seem to have the money to put GAS in their lawnmowers and keep their yard nice, but can always seem to purchase $17,000 worth of Pyrotechnics every f'ing year and damn near burn the neighborhood down, while ALSO keeping everyone up until 4am.

Sounds like your pissed today. Maybe the NAM will be right for a change on a low forming west of Tampa. Rain for Florida.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
326. NorthxCakalaky
9:19 PM GMT on July 04, 2007

Baltimore link
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
325. NorthxCakalaky
9:18 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
IF * I misstype alot sorry.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
324. NorthxCakalaky
9:16 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Hey is your done talking about 96L, look at the severe weather on this 4th of July.WOW! FYI A tornadow warning may be issued for Baltimore.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
323. nash28
9:14 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
They've been saying that for two days.

It's over. Too much dry air. That is the ONLY thing prohibiting this from developing. It wouldn't be an issue with a developed cyclone, like a hurricane, but one that barely has a closed LLC, which is now becoming seperated.... goodbye.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
322. vortextrance
9:10 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Posted By: moonlightcowboy at 9:08 PM GMT on July 04, 2007.

So, then 96L has less than 48 hours to get favorable upper level winds, and one d.max to build convection...looks like tonight is the night then, right?

The winds are favorable now. As was stated the dry air is the main problem. Even if a depression forms it will be shreded apart by Friday. 96L is a very very slim chance of ever being anything more than the wave it is now. Everyone have a great 4th.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
321. WeatherfanPR
9:12 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
530 PM EDT WED JUL 4 2007




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
320. nash28
9:09 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
It's finished. 96L is done. NHC did a good job not jumping to conclusions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
319. Ivansurvivr
4:59 PM EDT on July 04, 2007
Both P'cola bouy and WPBCANE05 have good valid points. Thats why those of on this blog along with the NHC and maybe even TWC will keep an eye on 96L along wth the other hundred or so waves that could become something worse.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
318. WeatherfanPR
9:04 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Hurricane Hortense 1996.

Read this:

A strong low-pressure system exited the coast of Senegal on August 30 and moved westward. A well-defined low-level circulation quickly formed, but convection remained minimal due to strong upper level shear. The shear abated enough to allow shower activity to refire, and the system became Tropical Depression Eight on September 3. As it moved westward under the influence of a high pressure system, convection around the depression remained minimal due to persistent shear. As the depression approached the Lesser Antilles, upper level shear rapidly lessened, and it was able to organize into Tropical Storm Hortense on the 7th.

Hortense moved slowly through the Leeward Islands late on September 7 into the 8th, and despite initial forecasts of quick strengthening to hurricane status, Hortense encountered shear from a fast moving upper-level short trough. Shear quickly abated, and Hortense was able to reach hurricane strength on the 9th while in the northeast Caribbean Sea. The large hurricane turned to the northwest, and passed over southwestern Puerto Rico near Gunica. After two hours over land, it entered the Mona Passage, and paralleled the northeast coast of Dominican Republic as an 80 mph (130 km/h) hurricane.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
317. moonlightcowboy
9:07 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
So, then 96L has less than 48 hours to get favorable upper level winds, and one d.max to build convection...looks like tonight is the night then, right?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
316. NorthxCakalaky
9:06 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
At last count 15 states of the U.S is under a Severe Thunder Storm Watch and/or a Tornadow Watch.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
315. WPBHurricane05
5:06 PM EDT on July 04, 2007

...and would that mean that upper level winds are more favorable now?

Upper level winds have been favorable, about 5-15 knots. Dry air is whats killing the system.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
314. NorthxCakalaky
9:01 PM GMT on July 04, 2007
Posted By: moonlightcowboy at 9:00 PM GMT on July 04, 2007.

Posted By: NorthxCakalaky at 8:57 PM GMT on July 04, 2007. (hide)
A small low pressure area in the tropical Atlantic Ocean could develop into a depression over the next day or so. The disturbance, with minimal convection, is centered about 1200 miles east of the southern Windward Islands. Upper-level winds will become less favorable for intensification in about 48 hours.

Wow that was the weather channel website!

...and would that mean that upper level winds are more favorable now?

Ask somebody with more knowledge.LOL
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 364 - 314

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™


Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Labrador ice