329 



Dr. Roberts. The Commission has not confronted this in a compre- 

 hensive way for the atmospheric sciences. It has compared relative 

 costs, and outlined the costs of the components that it has recommended 

 l^iitting into the NOAA. 



However, the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmosplieric Sci- 

 ence and ESSA have both made extensive studies, and I believe the 

 National 'Science Foundation also has done this, of the total funds 

 going into atmospheric science areas under present Federal programs, 

 including the very extensive weather services of the Department of 

 Defense. 



The Defense applications of atmospheric science, it must be obvious 

 to anyone, are extremely important, particularly in the long-range 

 forecasting and forecasting 'for remote regions of the world, so that 

 the total costs that are now being expended within the Federal Gov- 

 ernment for atmospheric sciences are a matter of record, and they are 

 very, very substantial. 



Only a small fraction of these Federal activities in atmospheric 

 science have been: recommended for inclusion in NOAA. However, 

 it would be quite easy, using these various reports, to develop a recom- 

 mendation that would, for example, show a distribution of activities 

 for what I would consider to be an appropriate NOAA, and to show 

 w'here areas of overlap might possibly be avoided in such an agency. 

 One could also put a price tag on the present work, and the recom- 

 mendations for the future. 



It would be a larger figure than that shown in the Stratton Com- 

 mission report, partly because of the inclusion of a larger range of 

 atmospheric science within the agency, and partly because of the 

 need for incremental funds for some of the major, coordinated pro- 

 grams leading toward long-range forecasting. The global atmospheric 

 research program, for example, has not been considered by the 

 Stratton Commission. 



Mr. Keith. I would think that would be helpful data for us to have, 

 as we approach the time when we really have to make a strong stand 

 on it. 



Dr. Roberts. I would be glad to provide, speaking just for myself, 

 and for my own organization, a view of what this might be. 



Mr. Keith. If the Chairman concurs, I think it would be very hel^^- 

 ful to have that. 



Mr. Hathaway. Yes, Doctor ; if you submit that, we would be glad 

 to incorporate it into the record. 



Dr. Roberts. Thank yon, sir. 



(The information requested follows:) 



Analysis op Present Pkograms in Atmospheric Science, by Federal Agency, 

 WITH Recommendations Regarding Consolidation Within an Appropriately 

 Constituted Ocean-Atmosphere Agency, June 4, 1969 



Planned FY 1970 funding for scientific research in tlie atmospheric sciences, as 

 reported by the Federal Council for Science and Technology ^ totals approxi- 

 mately $202 million, and involves efforts in 10 different federal departments and 

 agencies. This level should he compared with actual funding of atmospheric 

 research of over $248 million in FT 1968. In spite of heightened priority of public 

 interest in such socially important goals as weather modification, air pollution 

 control, and improved long-range weather forecasting, funds for underlying re- 

 search in this field have declined. 



1 Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences Report No. 13, January 1969. 

 26-563— 69— pt. 1 2:2 



