212 replies to this topic

[Huffwx]

isohume, on 20 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

About the only way I see a perceived competition between the NWS and private industry is with the public fcst. If that's the case, then we need to stop doing the AFD for the private sector to see and use. I don't know how many times the Charlotte/Asheville/Greenville media mets have asked us when the AFD is going to be out if it happens to be late. If we're in some sort of competition, then we need to stop feeding our competition.

Interesting idea. I think the goal is the to best inform the public so daily planning can be made and more importantly people can be ready for high impact events. I agree with the concept that broader national or regional offices is a bad idea, but withholding information from the public as a means of hurting competition is bad logic as well. It's not an easy answer-- nor a simple question.

[isohume]

Huffwx, on 20 February 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Interesting idea. I think the goal is the to best inform the public so daily planning can be made and more importantly people can be ready for high impact events. I agree with the concept that broader national or regional offices is a bad idea, but withholding information from the public as a means of hurting competition is bad logic as well. It's not an easy answer-- nor a simple question.

It was a hypothetical. The NWS is not in competition with private industry.

[blue sky]

Rainshadow, on 19 February 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

http://www.americanw..._1#entry1364215

NWS operating budget is less than a billion a year, so its approximately $3 per person in this country.

CONOPS consolidation failure cost the previous director of the NWS his position. While I won't disagree this idea will be floated again the union will fight this with every breath they have. Also the current building infrastructure as Bill has psoted is not structurally capable for staffing consolidation, so not only would you have to move people ($$$$), you would have to build new buildings or expand the existing ones (even more $$$$$$).

Cuts don't have to be unilateral, I don't expect our township to cut the fire department budget the same percentage as they would cut the public works department. I'm not saying that the NWS budget should be increased 10% per year, but even flatlining it, cuts can be made with not much impact on field offices.

In terms of educating myself...Why was...."The cuts and consolidation to the Canadian weather service was a disaster, ask any of the Canadian posters on here:".

[Rainshadow]

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

In terms of educating myself...Why was...."The cuts and consolidation to the Canadian weather service was a disaster, ask any of the Canadian posters on here:".

I'm guessing you didn't read the first sentence by the Canadian member who started that thread link?

[blue sky]

Rainshadow, on 20 February 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

I'm guessing you didn't read the first sentence by the Canadian member who started that thread?

No mention of disaster.?

[Rainshadow]

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

No mention of disaster.?

How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to?

[blue sky]

Rainshadow, on 20 February 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to?

Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites?

[Rainshadow]

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites?

When you answer these questions first. Here are the list of questions in this thread alone you have not answered, or answered with another question that had nothing to do with the original question. Have had it I have all night.



Can I see your data? Specifically a cost/benefit breakdown of the fire, aviation, warning, marine, hydrology, climate, decision support, outreach, and research programs? I'd like to run it up the chain.



No cost benefits to the aviation industry (accuracy) to have a single person forecast for 10 terminals instead of 100? The aviation initiative at OKX cut delays in the New York area airports in half. Do you honestly think they could have done that if they were forecasting for every terminal from Bangor to Raleigh?



I'm just waiting for your cost/benefit ratio breakdown. I could care less what you think of the NWS.



I'm curious about your ideas tho, specifically I'd like to see your data concerning the cost/benefit ratio of NWS non-forecasting programs.



The NWS operational budget for this fiscal year is 0.007% of that debt. The cost of the two wars would have funded the NWS for the next 500 years. Does it make sense to you to chop off 4% of that budget and expect to make a big dent on that debt?


How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to?

[baroclinic_instability]

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites?

This discussion is going nowhere. Various mets have given their own real life experiences on why a reduction is not doing the american public any good. As a met with experience in both sectors (private and public), it simply is not possible to compare what the private sector companies do compared to the NWS. Both serve a very distinct but different role in both enhancing the national economy as well as protecting the general public (either in a direct or indirect role, i.e. working with emergency managers, media outlets, etc.) The work each NWS office does is far beyond simply putting out a gridded forecast. NWS employees are much more than solely forecasters as our roles include many job duties you or the general public will never see. I won't rehash what many others already have.

As for the technology available...yes, it is a possibility in the future NWS CWA's are combined into larger offices/regional centers. Much is lost in such a transition, but once the technology is available, money saving trumps all else when it comes to the bean counters, but it is certainly a possibility...potentially a likelihood. It is all about cloud computing...and this is going to significant change the way every NWS office runs in the future.

[Rainshadow]

baroclinic_instability, on 20 February 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

This discussion is going nowhere. Various mets have given their own real life experiences on why a reduction is not doing the american public any good. As a met with experience in both sectors (private and public), it simply is not possible to compare what the private sector companies do compared to the NWS. Both serve a very distinct but different role in both enhancing the national economy as well as protecting the general public (either in a direct or indirect role, i.e. working with emergency managers, etc.) The work each NWS office does is far beyond simply putting out a gridded forecast. NWS employees are much much more than solely forectasters as our roles include many job duties you or the general public will never see. I won't rehash what many others already have.

As for the technology available...yes, it is a possibility in the future offices CWA's are combined into larger offices/regional centers. Much is lost in such a transition, but once the technology is vailable, budget cuts and money saving trumps all else when it comes to bean counters.

I think you got his/her goal. I'm done responding to questions that don't answer the original question. My apologies.

[donsutherland1]

IMO, the proposed cuts to NWS are a very bad idea for the following reasons:

1. Public safety is a core function of government and NWS plays a key role in promoting public safety.
2. NWS funding is not the reason the U.S. is facing a looming fiscal crisis. Tinkering with programs that are not driving the fiscal imbalances are nothing but an attempt to forego the tough decisions that will have to be made down the road.
3. Even if the NWS were eliminated, the budget savings would not alter the nation's long-term fiscal trajectory.
4. NWS is a high value-added entity.

IMO, the continuing lack of a coherent public policy/fiscal strategy in Washington has increased the likelihood that political leaders--Democrats and Republicans--will attempt ad hoc measures (largely cosmetic in nature) to demonstrate that they are trying to address the nation's fiscal challenges. Such proposals will not differentiate between the function of the programs involved, the value they offer, or whether they constitute investments (with long-term benefits) or expenditures (with no long-term benefits). The ad hoc approach is not an optimal one, even if it remains the most likely to be attempted.

[MGorse]

Hopefully this is okay to post here. I would like to encourage folks to register at this site and sign the petition.

https://wwws.whiteho...ervice/nQVPd4l2

[donsutherland1]

MGorse, on 20 February 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Hopefully this is okay to post here. I would like to encourage folks to register at this site and sign the petition.

https://wwws.whiteho...ervice/nQVPd4l2

I did and signed the petition.

[vortmax112]

There may be some merit to what you are saying. In fact I used to think the way you did when I was in the private sector and forecasted for the whole country from a centralized location. The thing you have to remember though is that it’s tough to make one to one comparisons between the two sectors. There is no “one size fits all” model to how many offices you need to forecast for the whole country. In the private sector where its profit driven you’ve gotta have a lean and mean operation where you as a result are only focusing on the major markets and/or significant weather and letting guidance do almost all the rest. I know, I was there. The problem with this is A LOT of things get missed. This is ok since missing things in sparsely populated regions isn’t going to bring down the company since those areas are not driving your profits. In the NWS it’s different since protecting life and property is THE main job and this means that missing a tornado warning where someone dies, even if its just in small town in Kansas, is a real big deal. Consequently, you have to make sure you have the resources to do the job correctly. Plus, as others have said, there is the fact that the NWS does lots of other stuff like outreach, hydrology, fire weather, aviation, etc. that a lot of private shops may not necessarily do. For these reason, I think you need local offices…maybe less than 122 but still at least an average of about 1 if not 2 per state so about 50 or 100. But then there is the problem of going through the whole restructuring process which in and of itself is very costly. As a result, I think it makes more sense to go after other areas of the government that have far more waste than there is with the NWS WFOs…

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites?

[Jim Marusak]

also, which congressman and senator will willingly give up their weather forecast offices? not saying it couldn't be done, but i see a lot of angry constituents if and when it happens.

[blizzard1024]

blue sky, on 20 February 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites?

The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media.
The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills,
public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know
us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and
decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings
when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during
tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone.
Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits.
Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based
on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS.
It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector
meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide
excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our
mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said.

[Rainshadow]

blizzard1024, on 20 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media.
The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency managements working on preparedness, drills,
public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know
us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and
decision support services briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on the long term
partnerships and trust when the storm hits. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE
in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to
evacuate...we evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was
the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don;t need 122
WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why this would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core
EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists....

Yes, we are going more and more toward decision support services as part of routine operations; it would become prohibitively
difficult to impossible to brief on the state and county levels during warning events if you start combining offices.

[isohume]

blizzard1024, on 20 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media.
The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills,
public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know
us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and
decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings
when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during
tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone.
Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits.
Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based
on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS.
It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector
meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide
excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our
mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said.

Great post.

I'd also add maintaining the climate network. If the local offices leave, some contractor groups are going to have to take it over I imagine. Folks making $12 an hour with no personal interest in the meticulous nature of climate. I've seen the climate record take a negative hit with ThreadX already and it doesn't need a more systematic degradation. We need to be better custodians of the nation's climate, not worse at this point.

[Eskimo Joe]

blizzard1024, on 20 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media.
The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills,
public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know
us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and
decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings
when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during
tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone.
Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits.
Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based
on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS.
It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector
meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide
excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our
mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said.

This times a million. Speaking as an EM, I love being able to dial into a trained meteorologist any time of the day. It makes our decision making processes that much quicker and easier.

[Shsg Falls]

blizzard1024, on 20 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media.
The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills,
public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know
us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and
decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings
when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during
tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone.
Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits.
Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based
on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS.
It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector
meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide
excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our
mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said.

I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation:

NWS WFO's in Florida:

Key West
Miami
Tampa Bay
Melbourne
Jacksonville
Tallahassee

...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami.

That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state).

As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call.

I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won.

Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of )

[BeauDodson]

isohume, on 20 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

About the only way I see a perceived competition between the NWS and private industry is with the public fcst. If that's the case, then we need to stop doing the AFD for the private sector to see and use. I don't know how many times the Charlotte/Asheville/Greenville media mets have asked us when the AFD is going to be out if it happens to be late. If we're in some sort of competition, then we need to stop feeding our competition.

I meant and should have said

The NWS does compete with private businesses in some peoples eyes. I am sure that some at Accu-Weather (and elsewhere) believe they are competing (as we have seen and heard over the years).

I do not personally see the NWS competing with private industry. I see them as a complimentary service to each other.

Just to be clear

[BeauDodson]

blizznd, on 19 February 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

At our local office monthly staff meeting....it was mentioned about mileage reduction in government vehicles and the steps that will be needed. That is the reason behind trying to reduce trips, etc. Any trips outside of the immediate area needs permission. Cooperative observer trips for maintenance will be reduced....or combined with other missions. For example, scheduling a cooperative station visit that afternoon on the same day as an evening spotter talk. Two people can come along. Trips to conferences stopped....and non-customer outreach stopped such as science fairs or school talks, outside of the local city you are in. That is what we are doing.

The conversation I had with a local NWS employee didn't say they were going to stop storm surveys - he said they could be and likely would be cut back (at some point). He also said that when they are told to park their cars - then that is it. They have to park their cars. Cutting down on mileage and so forth.

He suggested that the bigger events would likely receive more attention for surveys - smaller events - not so much.

[Ellinwood]

Maybe all of the ITOs can get jobs at the new National Water Center...

http://www.noaanews....120221_nwc.html

[radarMan]

Ellinwood, on 21 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Maybe all of the ITOs can get jobs at the new National Water Center...

http://www.noaanews....120221_nwc.html

Wow that place looks cool, and I'm sure they'll be hiring IT staff.

Unfortunate name however. And does NOAA really need to be calling it the NWC already? Sorry, I'm OT

[Rainshadow]

Shsg Falls, on 21 February 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation:

NWS WFO's in Florida:

Key West
Miami
Tampa Bay
Melbourne
Jacksonville
Tallahassee

...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami.

That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state).

As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call.

I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won.

Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of )

Well, those WSO(s) also forecast and warn for parts of Georgia and Alabama also. Given that Florida has the most thunderstorms and lightning related deaths in the country, I doubt they are all hanging around yawning waiting for a hurricane to strike. Alot of the innovation of hurricane related products have come from these offices.

We were briefing down to the township emergency management level with Irene and she was suppose to be a Cat 1 at landfall. A national call would last longer than the hurricane itself. There are local needs that are based on more than just wind.

I would beg to differ about consolidating aviation forecast areas. The OKX office added two meteorologists to have a dedicated aviation unit. Its not just about issuing TAF(s). They are on briefing conference calls with Tracons, CWSU etc. and for their efforts delays at the NYC airports are down 50 percent. How much money has that saved the airlines? Now give them 20 to 30 more TAF sites to forecast.

Operational field personnel comprise about 55% of NWS working staff.

Even if consolidation were to occur, new buildings would have to be constructed and paid moving of personnel would force a fairly substantial increase in the budget. How many years before savings kick in?

I will agree with you about Santorum, I'd be making this post after my day shift at Wegman's.

[Shsg Falls]

Rainshadow, on 21 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Well, those WSO(s) also forecast and warn for parts of Georgia and Alabama also. Given that Florida has the most thunderstorms and lightning related deaths in the country, I doubt they are all hanging around yawning waiting for a hurricane to strike. Alot of the innovation of hurricane related products have come from these offices.

We were briefing down to the township emergency management level with Irene and she was suppose to be a Cat 1 at landfall. A national call would last longer than the hurricane itself. There are local needs that are based on more than just wind.

I would beg to differ about consolidating aviation forecast areas. The OKX office added two meteorologists to have a dedicated aviation unit. Its not just about issuing TAF(s). They are on briefing conference calls with Tracons, CWSU etc. and for their efforts delays at the NYC airports are down 50 percent. How much money has that saved the airlines? Now give them 20 to 30 more TAF sites to forecast.

Operational field personnel comprise about 55% of NWS working staff.

Even if consolidation were to occur, new buildings would have to be constructed and paid moving of personnel would force a fairly substantial increase in the budget. How many years before savings kick in?

I will agree with you about Santorum, I'd be making this post after my day shift at Wegman's.

Thanks for the reply. Good things to consider.

[isohume]

BeauDodson, on 21 February 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

I meant and should have said

The NWS does compete with private businesses in some peoples eyes. I am sure that some at Accu-Weather (and elsewhere) believe they are competing (as we have seen and heard over the years).

I do not personally see the NWS competing with private industry. I see them as a complimentary service to each other.

Just to be clear

Yeah Accuweather is the only agency to my knowledge that publicly claims some sort of competition with the NWS. However, their obvious agenda has been well documented over the years.

[Rainshadow]

isohume, on 22 February 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

Yeah Accuweather is the only agency to my knowledge that publicly claims some sort of competition with the NWS. However, their obvious agenda has been well documented over the years.

The Weather Channel must have spent years saying thank-you for not realizing who your true competitors are.

[isohume]

Rainshadow, on 22 February 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

The Weather Channel must have spent years saying thank-you for not realizing who your true competitors are.

Lol...yeah they never quite got it. If you're on the way to slay the dragon, you may want to make sure to bring your glasses.

[phlwx]

weather.gov's been down a fair bit (not sure how much, but I checked last night at 6 PM and again this AM at 4) the last 12 hours or so. anyone know what's up?

[Rainshadow]

phlwx, on 28 February 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

weather.gov's been down a fair bit (not sure how much, but I checked last night at 6 PM and again this AM at 4) the last 12 hours or so. anyone know what's up?

They think it was a network/ISP problem not the site itself.

[das]

baroclinic_instability, on 14 February 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Sadly money is money...if NOAA decides to allocate less to us this year...not much we can do. Hopefully they don't keep cutting out every budget year. As MNTransplant said OAR saw cuts the previous go around, one can only hope this is not a new yearly thing. It certainly forces one to wonder why, after a budget increase to NOAA overall, that they chose to actually cut the NWS budget.

There are two reasons a Service, Department or Agency looses budget $$ in a given year, regardless of the Fed budget pressures: 1) there is a known and managed shift in organizational priorities or service delivery (ie., going to the cloud, reorg to modern structure, etc...) or 2) poor anticipatory management by the organization executives.

No good government executive "has their budget cut". The current budget and spending pressures were very easily known at least three years ago. No one making these decisions should be surprised. so its gotta be one of the two reasons above. The budget should not be cut every year unless the Service is being mismanaged or there is some organizational tactic in play here. It should not be hard for you guys on the inside to figure out.

[SunnyFL]

Shsg Falls, on 21 February 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation:

NWS WFO's in Florida:

Key West
Miami
Tampa Bay
Melbourne
Jacksonville
Tallahassee

...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami.

That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state).

As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call.

I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won.

Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of )

Well, they tried to close Key West in the 90s and that didn't last. Congressional pressure got them a full forecast office and a new hurricane proof building. Remember, TAE and JAX cover huge sections of AL and GA. The National Hurricane Center (it is no longer called the Tropical Prediction Center, BTW - Bill Read did away with that name) is a national center and even covers the whole Atlantic and much of the Pacific.

I've been around long enough to see a NWS with:
-State Forecast offices with responsibility for the whole state (some large states were broken up into several offices, like Texas and California)
-Many local WSOs with small staffs (many met-techs) and small CWAs but highly visible in the local community

Then after "modernization" in the 90s w/ NEXRAD and later AFOS we got:
-A forecast office (WFO) based on radar coverage w/ all meteorologists and total responsibility for their CWA.

It is interesting to see that no matter what they do, someone wants to change it. I was around for the mess in the 90s when they closed many WSOs and it was ugly. I knew a guy who was OIC at a closed WSO, but the local congressman wouldn't let the office close. So this fellow, after a long career w/ NWS, only went to the office once a day to get the mail for over a year. They had a WSR-57 radar and all of the equipment still there, but couldn't close the office even though it had no duties. My friend was the only employee and had nothing to do, he played a bunch of golf though.

[phlwx]

Rainshadow, on 28 February 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

They think it was a network/ISP problem not the site itself.

Good thing you all still have a full contingent of ITO's...god help you if you were down to 24...

[Rainshadow]

WPVI ABC6 did interview Dan today about the proposed budget cuts. It will be on the 6 and 11 o'clock news tonight.

It wasn't on at 6, I don't know if they are saving it for 11 or tomorrow.