Jump to content

BillB

Meteorologist
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BillB

Profile Information

  • Four Letter Airport Code For Weather Obs (Such as KDCA)
    KSFZ
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Southeast Massachusetts

Recent Profile Visitors

1,090 profile views
  1. The late 80s and the 90s were an abberation in the hiring pattern. The NWS was expanding from 52 forecast offices (the other 200-some offices were observations/radar/NWR/local warning) to 122 WFOs. This was a one-time-only increase, and required something like an additional 500 (not the exact number) forecasters on top of any changes due to retirements. Once those new Met Interns were in the system, and once the management teams were selected for each office (causing a handful of openings that reverberated down the ranks), the two waves of bids to fill (first) Senior Forecaster and (later) General Forecaster openings for each new office brought opportunities in large numbers (and also reverberated down the ranks ultimately bringing more Met Intern openings). In a few years, the first of us to be hired during that period will reach 30-years of service. A few may use that as an excuse to retire, most will hold on for several additional years. You will see an increase in retirements (over the current rate) in the 2020s, but this will be spread out over a wider span of time than the original hirings so it should not be a tidal wave. You ask if the original rate of hiring will ever return? It will not happen again in my lifetime or yours. Downsizing is a real concern. We've been promised that our jobs are not going away, and one would hope that the logistical nightmare of releasing forecasters would cost more than it would gain. Keeping the same number of people but fewer offices would also not work well; there is barely enough room in our building for the staff we currently have, both for administrative work as well as operationally during severe tstms/flooding/winter storms. Imagine that problem at 200% of current staffing. But the federal budget problems are there, they are real, and they continue to fester. We will have to be alert to the possibility that they could eventually impact front-line staffing. Bottom line... I think there will be openings for meteorologists in the NWS to cover attrition (cross fingers). But the hiring will be much more like the Aughts rather than the late 80s and 90s.
  2. Not to get anyone's hopes up, but in 5 years it will be 30 years since the beginning of the ramp-up to NWS Modernization staffing. Seems like yesterday to folks like Turtle and me. A lot of folks usually hang around for a few years after 30. However for some that may be the excuse they are awaiting to retire...increasing the number of openings due to attrition. But with the numbers out there waiting to apply...and with more adding on every year...it still will be tough.
  3. Another possible direction is to check with the local congressional representative, and ask them what is going on with the hiring procedure. Have them send a copy in writing. They should be more responsive and tenacious than a DOC/NOAA/NWS administrative office. A representative who ignores constituant services (such as navigating the federal labyrinth) doesn't remain a representative for long.....
  4. I agree with some of what this poster has said. There are a lot of people graduating each year, more than I'd like to see, and there are a limited number of openings. There have already been several good posts in this thread about advanced degrees and flexibility in relocating. I do take issue with a couple of points in the original post. 1. While I can't speak about stress in the private sector, I can say with some authority that the stress level at the NWS field level varies with location and time of day. At our office, it is low on "Big Bubble" days...and extreme on active weather days. It can be especially stressful in the short time we have between data availability and forecast/discussion/statement deadline time. The baseline stress level also goes up everytime Headquarters has a great new idea to add to the (already saturated) workload. 2. The Graphical Forecast Editior in the NWS is not a panacea. We aim to add value to the raw data, and that means doing more than simply "plug and chug". We go through the model data as thoroughly as we have time to do (see #1), and frequently find the best solution is a blend of two or more models or versions of models (00z vs 12z). Some of the time even this isn't enough, and we need to hand-massage the grid fields. Considering that there are roughly 40 different meteorological fields, many of which are hourly (24x7 = 168 hourly grids per field), that is a lot of data to cover. We also need to QC all of these grids to ensure we avoid "Mostly sunny with a 50 percent chance of rain." QC is not done automatically by the system...when we change even one grid, we need to check all the fields that grid may affect. So while the NWS domains may be "small", it is not accurate to imply they are easy. And the forecasts, while not hand-written, still require a heck of a lot of work. 3. An example on grid editing and workload: Our office has been working on grid-generated aviation forecasts (the last and most difficult forecast type to grid-ize). This will allow us to produce forecasts for many more sites than we already do...and we already forecast for 10 sites (second only to LOX in the lower 48 states). To be sure, we do spend less time typing aviation forecasts now. But when you add in all the grid editing and QC, it still takes the same amount of time to produce a forecast package as before. So automation has shifted the workload, but it hasn't reduced it. 3. Unless there is a very quiet weather day and week, we do not even consider having one desk handling the entire forecast. Too much detail is needed. 4. NWS staffing has 8 to 10 forecasters per office. On a technical level, the administrative team (MIC, SOO, WCM, Service Hydrologist) may be able to fill in...but some offices have local policies that discourage this. Some Service Hydrologists are degreed Hydrologists, not Meteorologists, and so do not staff a weather forecast desk. The Public Service Desk may have Interns, HMTs, or a mix of the two; while the Interns may be able to fill in from time to time, that is not what they are there to do. So quoting "122 offices, each with about 20 people" makes us sound a lot more flush with bodies that we really are. The NWS hasn't been "easy" to get into since at least the mid '90s. So I urge everyone contemplating a career in Meteorology to think long and hard about it. And if you do feel a calling for this field, have a Plan B. Given the current economy, a Plan C and Plan D probably wouldn't hurt as well.
×
×
  • Create New...