←back to thread

US Defense Department will stop providing satellite weather data

(text.npr.org)
300 points drewr | 8 comments | 28 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.661s | source | bottom
Show context
WarOnPrivacy ◴[29 Jun 25 00:22 UTC] No.44409297[source]▶
Here is what will be denied to NOAA, now and going forward

    Defense Department data also allow hurricane forecasters to see
    hurricanes as they form, and monitor them in real-time.

    For example, hurricane experts can see where the center of a 
    newly formed storm is, which allows them to figure out as 
    early as possible what direction it is likely to go, and whether
    the storm might hit land. That's important for people in harm's way,
    who need as much time as possible to decide whether to evacuate,
    and to prepare their homes for wind and water.
The public paid for this data. Deliberately siloing the data to insure it can't save American lives wouldn't just be theft, it would be an act indistinguishable from evil.
replies(6): >>44409422 #>>44409552 #>>44409594 #>>44409616 #>>44409997 #>>44413099 #
1. whycombagator ◴[29 Jun 25 01:24 UTC] No.44409616[source]▶
> NOAA, which oversees the National Hurricane Center, says the loss of the Defense Department data will not lead to less-accurate hurricane forecasts this year. In a statement, NOAA communications director Kim Doster said, "NOAA's data sources are fully capable of providing a complete suite of cutting-edge data and models that ensure the gold-standard weather forecasting the American people deserve."
replies(2): >>44409739 #>>44409918 #
2. lurkshark ◴[29 Jun 25 01:52 UTC] No.44409739[source]▶
I wouldn’t really expect a Trump administration spokesperson to put out a statement critical of the Trump administration’s decision.
replies(1): >>44438385 #
3. tw04 ◴[29 Jun 25 02:37 UTC] No.44409918[source]▶
Kim Doster is a Trump appointee who worked on Musk’s super pac. Her previous position was as a climate change denial specialist. Pardon my skepticism that we can believe anything she has to say. The Trump administration is a big fan of hiring Iraqi information minister wannabes as their spokespeople.
replies(2): >>44409967 #>>44412185 #
4. jackvalentine ◴[29 Jun 25 02:48 UTC] No.44409967[source]▶
> Iraqi information minister wannabes

I’ve been thinking about that guy once a week since this administration started.

5. fredfish ◴[29 Jun 25 11:21 UTC] No.44412185[source]▶
> Her previous position was as a climate change denial specialist.

Predictions won't be less accurate because weather is beyond the comprehension of all people and no amount of data could change that.

6. lenkite ◴[01 Jul 25 22:04 UTC] No.44438385[source]▶
This is Congress 2015 decision. The Trump administration extended the deadline by another month.
replies(1): >>44440525 #
7. lurkshark ◴[02 Jul 25 05:34 UTC] No.44440525{3}[source]▶
The congressional decision was to scrap the continued development of the DMSP satellites, not to decommission the existing ones or stop the data sharing arrangement. The DoD confirmed the DMSP is still operating and will continue to do so but the data sharing is what they have now decided to cut off.

It also looks like one of the “next-generation” systems, the JPSS, has been ordered to operate in maintenance mode.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/amid-trump-cuts-n...

replies(1): >>44441036 #
8. lenkite ◴[02 Jul 25 07:25 UTC] No.44441036{4}[source]▶
Well, the history of the existing satellites shows that many of them have exploded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Meteorological_Satelli...

AFAIK, Congress voted in 2015 to terminate the whole DMSP program. There was no mention of continuation of "data sharing" or anything like that, as you suggest. I guess in the DOGE budget cleanup of DoD, terminated programs are really being terminated instead of continuing to operate under the radar.

Regarding JPSS - that article says that new JPSS satellites are scheduled to be launched. I agree that the "minimum mission operations approach" doesn't make much sense if that is the case. My guess is that this is a stupid cost cutting move that will most likely be rolled back after pushback.