{"id":229817,"date":"2019-09-07T04:32:09","date_gmt":"2019-09-07T08:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=229817"},"modified":"2019-09-07T04:32:09","modified_gmt":"2019-09-07T08:32:09","slug":"agency-reverses-course-on-trumps-alabama-hurricane-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/09\/07\/agency-reverses-course-on-trumps-alabama-hurricane-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Agency reverses course on Trump’s Alabama hurricane claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: President Donald J. Trump addresses his remarks prior to signing H.R. 1327; an act to permanently authorize the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Monday, July 29, 2019, in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Photo<\/a>: realdonaldtrump\/Instagram<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 A federal agency reversed course Friday on the question of whether President Donald Trump tweeted stale information about Hurricane Dorian potentially hitting Alabama, upsetting meteorologists around the country.<\/p>\n

On Sunday, Trump had warned that Alabama, along with the Carolinas and Georgia, was \u201cmost likely to be hit (much) harder than anticipated.\u201d<\/p>\n

The National Weather Service in Birmingham, Alabama, tweeted in response: \u201cAlabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the president has been adamant throughout the week that he was correct, and the White House has deployed government resources and staff to back him.<\/p>\n

The latest defence came out Friday evening, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a statement from an unidentified spokesman stating that information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to the president had demonstrated that \u201ctropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.\u201d The advisories were dated from last Wednesday, Aug. 28, through Monday, the statement read.<\/p>\n

Friday’s statement also said the Birmingham NWS tweet Sunday morning \u201cspoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.\u201d<\/p>\n

The statement from NOAA contrasts with comments the agency’s spokesman, Chris Vaccaro, made Sunday. \u201cThe current forecast path of Dorian does not include Alabama,\u201d Vaccaro said at the time.<\/p>\n

Friday’s NOAA statement, attributed to an unnamed spokesman and released just before 5 p.m. Friday, points to a few graphics issued by the National Hurricane Center to support Trump’s claims. The maps show percentage possibility of tropical storm force winds in the United States. Parts of Alabama were covered, usually with 5% to 10% chances, between Aug. 27 and Sept. 3. Maps on Aug. 30 grew to cover far more of Alabama, but for only 12 hours, and the highest percentage hit 20% to 30% before quickly shrinking back down.<\/p>\n

Alabama was not mentioned in any of the 75 forecast advisories the hurricane centre sent out between Aug. 27 and Sept. 2. Nor was any Alabama city mentioned in the charts that listed percentage chances of tropical storm force winds or hurricane force winds. Every state along the U.S. East Coast \u2014 as well as Canada and inland places like Washington, D.C. \u2014 was mentioned in those charts, but not Alabama.<\/p>\n

Some meteorologists voiced concerns about NOAA’s actions Friday.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am very disappointed to see this statement come out from NOAA,\u201d Oklahoma University meteorology professor Jason Furtado told The Associated Press. \u201cI am thankful for the folks at NWS Birmingham for their work in keeping the citizens of Alabama informed and up to date on weather hazards.\u201d<\/p>\n

Furtado said NOAA’s statement and the president’s Twitter \u201cwar on weather\u201d are undermining confidence in meteorologists, adding, \u201cThe job just got harder because of this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, former president of the American Meteorology Society, simply responded, \u201cOMG.\u201d<\/p>\n

Brian McNoldy, a hurricane researcher at the University of Miami, cited the focus that NOAA placed on \u201ctropical force winds\u201d in its Friday evening statement. He said the first assertion about such winds from Dorian affecting Alabama is fine, but the second assertion \u201cseems to be excessive.\u201d<\/p>\n

McNoldy said the National Weather Service \u201chad the right tone and message for the time. Alabama, for some time, was on the fringe of probabilities of experiencing tropical storm winds. That is not very threatening.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Birmingham office was correct,\u201d said a NOAA staffer familiar with the situation but speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired in reprisal.<\/p>\n

MIT meteorology professor Kerry Emanuel said Trump’s \u201cbroadcast of false information is inexcusable.\u201d<\/p>\n

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment. It is part of the Commerce Department, overseen by Secretary Wilbur Ross. The White House did not immediately respond to a question of whether someone at the White House had asked NOAA to issue its statement.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n

Associated Press writer Hope Yen contributed to this report.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON \u2014 A federal agency reversed course Friday on the question of whether President Donald Trump tweeted stale information about …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":225420,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-seth-borenstein","mauthors-kevin-freking","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229817"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229817\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":229818,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229817\/revisions\/229818"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/225420"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}