“(W)hat is wrong with Pagasa is cultural more than lack of equipment. The agency has various equipment donated by neighboring countries, which Pagasa is not using.”
by Ducky Paredes
The statement of the Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (Agham) on the transfer of Dr. Prisco Nilo from director of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) to a position in the Department of Science and Technology (DIST) misses the point:
“The removal of Dr. Prisco Nilo as director of the Pagasa due to differences with his immediate superior shows that the current government would rather fire the messenger than upgrade the bureau’s capacity to prepare for typhoons and disasters.
“If government continues to blame the scientists instead of providing funds to upgrade their measurements, the brain drain that has gone on for so long will be difficult to reverse.
“Patriotic scientists who have opted to stay on despite low wages, general lack of research and development funds and local opportunities will be driven off instead of being useful to national development.”
Does this mean that we should suffer incompetence because these scientists have decided to sacrifice themselves to low paying jobs and inferior equipment that our government offers? When the people who are assigned to warn us against typhoons, floods and other disasters do not deliver even as the rest of the world are tracking huge storms approaching our country and other countries in our neighborhood, they cannot be too competent.
As I hear it, what is wrong with Pagasa is cultural more than lack of equipment. The agency has various equipment donated by neighboring countries, which Pagasa is not using but which, with a little tweaking or the application of common sense would be useful. For instance, a sensor that gives out its data in Chinese has been installed but is not used.
Taiwan, the donor country, instead uses the data from the Philippines that the equipment sends out. The Taiwanese are also frustrated because what they give us does not seem to be appreciated. There is a lot of information available from the rest of the world and even from private observatories that can and should be used which are also being ignored.
What may be wrong with Pagasa is that they want to exclusively own the Philippine weather forecasts, instead of simply wanting to provide the best service to the country by giving us the best forecast even if the data comes from other sources. For instance, in Bulacan and other parts of Central Luzon, residents know that storms often skip their area when these hit the Sierra Madre Mountains. The typhoons are diverted to the South to Laguna, Cavite, Batangas and Manila. Wasn’t this what happened to Basyang? The Bulakenos expected the mountains to save them as, in fact, they did. Why did not Pagasa input the Sierra Madres in their mathematical model of the storm?
Says Agham: “There are two sides to this coin. The first requires us to understand the nature of typhoons. Typhoons are really large masses of air that are spinning and moving over land and sea. Much like a spinning top will be affected by the surface it is moving on, typhoons can change course depending on the local conditions of its landfall and other nearby weather systems. The predicted course given by Pagasa is obtained from an initial prediction from mathematical models, which is then updated to take into account possible changes. The bulletins are then corrected and reissued every six hours. The predicted course is thus useful within the accuracy and precision that their models and updates can give.
“One should only expect accuracy within the capability of the measuring device. To require more from PAGASA, the president should have asked what equipment and human resources is needed instead of putting blame on its department head.”
One has to disagree. If one makes a prediction (based on scientifically prepared mathematical models) that turns out to be wrong and one has no explanation for this, doesn’t it show that the person is incompetent or does not understand what his bureau is doing. Someone on top of the situation would understand what went wrong with his bureau’s mathematical model and would be able to explain it. The fact that when asked, no explanation comes and, instead, excuses (as in defective or outdated but not obsolete equipment) are offered means that the person is not on top of the situation. In fact, even with all of the most modern equipment, the Pagasa culture which, among other things, seems to be one of acceptance that its forecast will be wrong any number of times will defeat its better personnel’s best efforts.
(Also, why must the updates be done only every six hours? A storm can change direction within minutes.)
Continues Agham: “In preparing for a typhoon, especially one that is covering a large area and strong winds, it is therefore not just a matter of alerting one region but ramping up the disaster readiness for the adjoining regions and cities as well. If PAGASA has pointed out that Central Luzon will be along the main path of the typhoon earlier in the day, the NDCC could have been prudent enough to alert Metro Manila and adjoining areas as well.”
Good grief, the forecast is that the storm is moving north and that Central Luzon and the Ilocos will be affected and one is supposed to warn Metro Manila, Laguna, Cavite and Battings? Why exclude Mindoro and the Bicol Region?
The best course for us may be to allow others to also get into the forecasting business. This was the situation pre-war when the Manila Observatory of the old Ateneo on Padre Faure was the main weather forecaster for the country. The argument against this is that too many forecasts may become confusing. While that may happen, it might be better than having just one forecast that could be off by several miles.
# # # #
hvp 08.10.10
Post a Comment