Dan Robinson
EF5
We've received confirmation that operational NWS positions are indeed among broader staffing cuts taking place to NOAA this week.
Last edited:
-
After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.
I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.
For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.
From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.
Sincerely, Jeff D.
Cuts to NOAA impacting the National Weather Service
- Thread starter Dan Robinson
- Start date
Brett Roberts
EF5
Somewhere around 1000 NOAA employees were fired this afternoon: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5167978-noaa-firings-probationary-workers-doge/
Most or all were "probationary," meaning they had started in their current roles within the past 1-2 years. I know several who were exceptional scientists; they just happened to move from roles in academia or elsewhere into the federal government recently. Absolutely elite, world-class contributors to forecasting, modeling, research, and other areas of meteorology were caught up in this simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's unclear how many total were fired from operational NWS roles, but it definitely wasn't zero, as several forecasters at local NWSFOs have posted their termination letters on social media. Additionally, every probationary employee working at NWS EMC on our numerical modeling suite was fired:
A catastrophic day for the US weather enterprise. Even if this instigates vigorous pushback that fends off further damage to NOAA, the damage from today alone will be felt for years to come.
Most or all were "probationary," meaning they had started in their current roles within the past 1-2 years. I know several who were exceptional scientists; they just happened to move from roles in academia or elsewhere into the federal government recently. Absolutely elite, world-class contributors to forecasting, modeling, research, and other areas of meteorology were caught up in this simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's unclear how many total were fired from operational NWS roles, but it definitely wasn't zero, as several forecasters at local NWSFOs have posted their termination letters on social media. Additionally, every probationary employee working at NWS EMC on our numerical modeling suite was fired:
A catastrophic day for the US weather enterprise. Even if this instigates vigorous pushback that fends off further damage to NOAA, the damage from today alone will be felt for years to come.
Ken Perrin
EF0
So far Tulsa's schedule remains
John Farley
Supporter
Linked below is a report from 9 News in Denver. It was one of the top stories on the 10 p.m. newscast. Around 1300 employees total nationwide, including operational meteorologists in NWS offices. At a time when the quality of tornado warnings was already declining, as is well-documented on other threads on ST, the LAST thing we need is for reductions in staff in already understaffed and overworked NWS offices. This will cost the lives of Americans due to further degradation in warnings, spotter training, etc. But I guess the billionaires need their tax cuts.
Dan Robinson
EF5
In the weather sphere, it is good to see that the support for the NWS is apolitical and unanimous. What would be the most effective way to voice concerns over this as an individual? With all of these battles the community is fighting simultaneously, it would be helpful to have some direction on effective things to do.
John Farley
Supporter
I would think contacting your congressional representatives and emphasizing the public safety aspects of your concerns would be one good way. I personally do not have a lot of faith in Congress, but if they hear enough of an outcry it might make a difference.
Jamie H
EF3
I would guess in this instance that nothing is going to fix or overturn it. This was part of the plan, people voted for it, and it's going to continue to happen across all kinds of government agencies and departments.
Previous attempts to bury the NWS failed but this one hit it hard. And it's incredibly difficult to remain apolitical about this when it's politically and partisan led.
Sorry for the aside. I'm upset by this.
Previous attempts to bury the NWS failed but this one hit it hard. And it's incredibly difficult to remain apolitical about this when it's politically and partisan led.
Sorry for the aside. I'm upset by this.
Ken Perrin
EF0
I'm frustrated by the blind followers.
Struggling to keep my political views (not either party btw), out of here.
Mike Smith
EF5
My question: where were many of you 14 years ago when the cuts began and the NWS's storm warning accuracy began to tumble?
Is this genuine concern for the nation's safety (if it were, you would have begun speaking out when Obama began the cutting) or is it that you don't like President Trump?
Here are my latest thoughts FWIW: No One Is Cutting the National Weather Service - Updated
NOAA is bloated while NWS is starved of resources. Millions can be cut from NOAA w/o hurting anything; most should go to NWS and part can be returned to the Treasury.
If you want to be constructive, write the White House and Congress and tell them we need to fix the NWS (along these lines, The Future of NOAA and the National Weather Service, Part I , please read all 3 parts) and tell them we desperately need a National Disaster Review Board -- which would have been sounding the alarms about all of this years ago.
Is this genuine concern for the nation's safety (if it were, you would have begun speaking out when Obama began the cutting) or is it that you don't like President Trump?
Here are my latest thoughts FWIW: No One Is Cutting the National Weather Service - Updated
NOAA is bloated while NWS is starved of resources. Millions can be cut from NOAA w/o hurting anything; most should go to NWS and part can be returned to the Treasury.
If you want to be constructive, write the White House and Congress and tell them we need to fix the NWS (along these lines, The Future of NOAA and the National Weather Service, Part I , please read all 3 parts) and tell them we desperately need a National Disaster Review Board -- which would have been sounding the alarms about all of this years ago.
KenMcWatters
EF1
I warned about this on this site a year ago. The threat to NOAA and other government agencies was right in Project 2025, which was available to read even back then. Here's the thread - https://stormtrack.org/threads/plan-to-break-up-noaa.32703/
The thread was locked quickly. Before it was, comments were made to the effect to not take it seriously, that they've been saying this for years. It would have been nice if more Americans had taken the threat seriously, and not voted the way a certain TV network told them they should always vote. My recommendation: get your news from multiple, diverse sources and then make up your own mind.
The thread was locked quickly. Before it was, comments were made to the effect to not take it seriously, that they've been saying this for years. It would have been nice if more Americans had taken the threat seriously, and not voted the way a certain TV network told them they should always vote. My recommendation: get your news from multiple, diverse sources and then make up your own mind.
John Farley
Supporter
I read your blog post, Mike. We can't do anything now about what may have happened 14 years ago. I have ALWAYS been opposed to cuts to the NWS, regardless of party in power. But contrary to what you assert in your blog post, multiple news outlets are reporting that cuts have occurred to staff in NWS forecast offices. I hope you are willing to say this is bad. If not, you are doing the same thing you say that others did 14 years ago.
Mike Smith
EF5
"Multiple news outlets" reported that President Biden was not suffering from dementia.
Yesterday, a meteorologist (Twitter) wrote that he would "prove" (his word) that meteorologists have been laid off from forecast offices. I keep checking back and nothing. It could be WFO mets have been laid off but no one has presented any evidence that is true. Just rumors.
If true, I am completely against those cuts and will act.
My gosh, between my blog, StormTrack and editorials I wrote during the first Trump Administration (I am a conservative) I easily wrote 50+ comments that the NWS was in serious trouble, tornado (and other) warnings were decreasing in accuracy, and that we desperately need a National Disaster Review Board to help fix this. How many of you wrote your congresspeople? How many wrote the White House?
Or, was situation okay because it was a Democrat (Biden) administration?
We had a bill before both Houses of Congress. It passed the House; it and might have been the key to mitigating this. If you didn't write then, I'm not sure you have the moral high ground to be complaining now. With a new Congress and new administration, we have to go back to zero.
Mike Smith
EF5
If you are concerned, PLEASE read this.
A Primer on NWS and Its Future
A Primer on NWS and Its Future
Dan Robinson
EF5
For the journalists out there, it would be helpful to compile a list of specifically what is being impacted by these cuts. That would help allay the concerns of hyperbole vs dismissiveness by getting us all on the same page about exactly what is happening. That has always been the challenge with our information sources in our current era.
Here are some things I've seen referred to. If anyone has clarifying info/refutations to these, please chime in:
- 11 NWS offices in the Great Plains region were already understaffed *prior* to the cuts, requiring assistance from neighboring NWSFOs during big events. It has not been reported, however, if any positions in these actual offices were cut.
- At least one RAOB (in Alaska) cannot be launched due to staffing issues directly related to the cuts. Presumably that could affect CONUS models by removing an important upstream data point?
- Some of the cuts involved skilled specialists working on the improvement/upgrading of models, with their terminations based mostly/all on their probationary status. Again, were all such positions cut, or just a few? What is the actual expected impact?
Here are some things I've seen referred to. If anyone has clarifying info/refutations to these, please chime in:
- 11 NWS offices in the Great Plains region were already understaffed *prior* to the cuts, requiring assistance from neighboring NWSFOs during big events. It has not been reported, however, if any positions in these actual offices were cut.
- At least one RAOB (in Alaska) cannot be launched due to staffing issues directly related to the cuts. Presumably that could affect CONUS models by removing an important upstream data point?
- Some of the cuts involved skilled specialists working on the improvement/upgrading of models, with their terminations based mostly/all on their probationary status. Again, were all such positions cut, or just a few? What is the actual expected impact?
Similar threads
