Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Randy Zipser]

Although the general theme of Trump's DOGE proposing to dismantle NOAA have been discussed in a few posts here already since Trump's inauguration, a CNN story this morning confirms that 800 NOAA employees are now being "fired" from their jobs, including one or more NOAA career employees with over 30 years of experience. The story implied that the administration's stance against climate change is the principle cause behind these firings.

A topic to be discussed here is how such firings (and this could be just the start of them) could potentially affect the nation's severe-storm and tropical-weather forecasting and warning functions, both of which depend exclusively on NOAA and its dedicated employees? What do they propose to replace these crucial services, if anything, to safeguard our citizens from atmospheric natural disasters? How can the public fight these changes? Any thoughts...

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'll go on the record saying I hate to see these people fired. I do not believe these jobs were public safety related, like SPC employees.

However, no job or career is ever safe. In the private sector, thousands are fired or laid off every year. They also have families and bills, but no one pays any attention to their story. I loved chasing storms full time and making over 100k per year, but technology and changing markets nixed that.

AI and other technologies are approaching like a run-away freight train. Young people really need to start thinking ahead. Having other skills like speaking a second language or a trade skill is a good back-up plan.

 

[Jeff Smith]

I'll go on the record saying I hate to see these people fired. I do not believe these jobs were public safety related, like SPC employees.

However, no job or career is ever safe. In the private sector, thousands are fired or laid off every year. They also have families and bills, but no one pays any attention to their story. I loved chasing storms full time and making over 100k per year, but technology and changing markets nixed that.

AI and other technologies are approaching like a run-away freight train. Young people really need to start thinking ahead. Having other skills like speaking a second language or a trade skill is a good back-up plan.

100% true. Anyone whom loses their job is in a tough spot-but its not an obstacle that can't be overcome. When covid was the big news story they slashed 30% of the workforce here (Ford wholesale distribution center and parts sales). We survived. Was it difficult? Absolutely. Obviously a different business but the outcome was similar. 30% of our workforce had to find employ elsewhere (not myself thankfully). The "people will die" social media posts that are dominating the weather socials are over the top though as well as way too melodramatic.

 

[Mike Smith]

Here are my thoughts FWIW: Let's Get Serious About the National Weather Service

 

[John Farley]

Here are my thoughts FWIW: Let's Get Serious About the National Weather Service

In the piece you linked, I thought Cliff Mass nailed it here:

To quote Cliff again,
Like an expert tree surgeon, the administration needs a deep understanding of the entity it wishes to improve before taking action.

Unfortunately, the current administration has not done this, deciding to simply cut the recent growth (new employees) irrespective of whether their roles are important or critical.

This is the problem. If it was a careful effort to eliminate waste and fraud, I would be fine with it. But it is not. Mass firings of the people who are easy to fire, regardless of what their contribution, work quality, or importance. And as I noted in the other thread, it does not reduce the tax cut when you use everything you save and more to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. 3.1 trillion in budget cuts and 4.5 trillion in tax cuts increases the deficit instead of decreasing it. And this kind of wholesale cutting of the NWS is not going to lead to better warnings. Probably further deterioration.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Here are my thoughts FWIW: Let's Get Serious About the National Weather Service

Good to hear from you again, and very well said...now, if only our national political leaders (especially a silent, to-date, 119th U.S. Congress) would put your words into action! "From Your Mouth To God's Ear," as the saying goes...

 

[JamesCaruso]

I am in favor of limited government. But civil defense - including weather - should be one of the Federal government’s few responsibilities. Weather requires an overall infrastructure that no private company is going to be able or willing to pay for, especially in low-population areas.

Having said that, I am sure there is a ton of bureaucracy and redundancy that can be pruned. Why would NOAA/NWS be different in that regard than any other government agency? We have to be intellectually honest about that, and not get upset just because we are weather enthusiasts. I saw one comment about some NWS offices needing support from neighboring offices during big events; might this not be a good idea? No organization can afford to base its year-round staffing on infrequent peak demands. Maybe there are some cuts to operational NWS positions that are inappropriate, but I feel like we really don’t have a clear enough picture about this yet, there seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there.

ST is not a place for political battles, so I hesitate to post this. But it’s very difficult to have this NWS discussion without delving into policy decisions, including tax policy. It bothers me to *not* respond because this may be all that people see and will start to believe without understanding an alternative view.

when you use everything you save and more to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations

We have a progressive tax code, and the Pareto principle (80/20 rule) applies as it always does: a small percentage of people pay the majority of taxes. Those tend to be the people at the top of the income and wealth ladder. So of course tax cuts will benefit them. But “billionaires” are not putting their money under their mattresses. They are deploying capital for investment that drives economic growth. Even if they just invest their tax savings in the stock market, that is driving economic growth. Regardless of who gets it, I would rather see money circulating in the private sector than in government coffers.

As for corporations - they are ultimately owned by people. If you have a pension or retirement account that invests in individual equities, then you as an individual benefit from a tax cut given to a corporation. A corporation is an abstract entity. Less money to the government and more to the corporation is in the private sector and ends up in individual hands somehow or other - through an increase in equity value, or dividend distributions, or deployment of capital in other investments that benefit the overall economy.

 

[Randy Zipser]

I am in favor of limited government. But civil defense - including weather - should be one of the Federal government’s few responsibilities. Weather requires an overall infrastructure that no private company is going to be able or willing to pay for, especially in low-population areas.

Having said that, I am sure there is a ton of bureaucracy and redundancy that can be pruned. Why would NOAA/NWS be different in that regard than any other government agency? We have to be intellectually honest about that, and not get upset just because we are weather enthusiasts. I saw one comment about some NWS offices needing support from neighboring offices during big events; might this not be a good idea? No organization can afford to base its year-round staffing on infrequent peak demands. Maybe there are some cuts to operational NWS positions that are inappropriate, but I feel like we really don’t have a clear enough picture about this yet, there seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there.

ST is not a place for political battles, so I hesitate to post this. But it’s very difficult to have this NWS discussion without delving into policy decisions, including tax policy. It bothers me to *not* respond because this may be all that people see and will start to believe without understanding an alternative view.



We have a progressive tax code, and the Pareto principle (80/20 rule) applies as it always does: a small percentage of people pay the majority of taxes. Those tend to be the people at the top of the income and wealth ladder. So of course tax cuts will benefit them. But “billionaires” are not putting their money under their mattresses. They are deploying capital for investment that drives economic growth. Even if they just invest their tax savings in the stock market, that is driving economic growth. Regardless of who gets it, I would rather see money circulating in the private sector than in government coffers.

As for corporations - they are ultimately owned by people. If you have a pension or retirement account that invests in individual equities, then you as an individual benefit from a tax cut given to a corporation. A corporation is an abstract entity. Less money to the government and more to the corporation is in the private sector and ends up in individual hands somehow or other - through an increase in equity value, or dividend distributions, or deployment of capital in other investments that benefit the overall economy.

Great discussion, James. When I originally posed the topic of discussion for this thread, I was not thinking that it would veer off into the political world. Who can ever know or meaningfully figure out the rationale for anything goes on there!

My interest is to brainstorm how/whether the services currently provided through the various agency acronyms within NOAA's umbrella will ever be adversely impacted by these DOGE changes enough to hinder or limit in the future what storm-chasers, emergency-response managers, or specialized-forecast/warning meteorologists can do (or expect to do). For example, could some DOGE-implemented change hamper the ability to receive or report spotter information from the field so that it could not be available to the public in near-realtime (as is the case now) to produce life-saving warnings (now the responsibility of the NWS)? As taxpayers, the public will always have a vested need for essential services such as weather and other natural-disaster event forecasts and warnings. Even if, perhaps, slightly less efficient in the delivery of information than large private consulting entities which largely provide very-timely, highly-specialized or pin-point location products for their clients on a for-profit basis, it still may be more effective in the long-run to provide a broader spectrum of everyday services or products at taxpayer expense; and, if not not specifically earmarked for weather/natural disasters, such funds will surely be spent elsewhere. That said, why should weather, particularly severe-weather, not get its "fair-share" to serve effectively the public's current needs, even if current political bias favors slashing all federal government agency budgets, including NOAA's? In the aftermath of an EF-5 tornado or Category 5 hurricane is not the time to discover that federal resources are inadequate to deal with these situations because six-months earlier the DOGE sent a bulldozer right through the middle of NOAA's or FEMA's budgets and fired hundreds of their "essential" employees...

 

[Mike Smith]

In the aftermath of an EF-5 tornado or Category 5 hurricane is not the time to discover that federal resources are inadequate to deal with these situations because six-months earlier the DOGE sent a bulldozer right through the middle of NOAA's or FEMA's budgets and fired hundreds of their "essential" employees.

Many experienced insiders say, "In Washington, nothing succeeds like failure." Our intelligence agencies, in spite of many clues plus phone calls from concerned citizens, flight instructors, etc., failed to warn us of September 11. Instead of people being fired, hundreds of billions were ladled onto the intelligence and FBI's already large budgets.

While I have written a book, When the Sirens Were Silent, and done everything I can to prevent another mega-tornado (or similar) disaster by campaigning for a NDRB (for 13 years), it may be that a preventable mega-disaster is the only thing that will get D.C.'s attention.

Please keep in mind that FEMA should be pared down to a small federal disaster logistics/red tape cutting (only) or closed altogether for the good it does.

NOAA should be drastically cut with the NWS removed from their purview. Please see: Let's Get Serious About the National Weather Service

Randy, if you or anyone else has plans for what the future of disaster forecasting/handling should look like, please share them! I sometimes feel I am taking up too much of the discussion.

 

[TonyB]

Austerity is always hard, but ultimately the federal govt has to get a handle on spending one way or another.

My only real critique is starting with outsiders making the cuts vs those knowledgeable in the daily processes and service. If we are currently running at a ~28% federal budget deficit, a blanket order should have come down on all departments to reduce their budgets by 30% by a certain date or else the DOGE hammer comes down on them in this fashion. Starting with the hammer first seems crude, ripe for abuse, and a recipe for unintended consequences.

 

[Mike Smith]

blanket order should have come down on all departments to reduce their budgets by 30% by a certain date or else the DOGE hammer comes down on them in this fashion.

Please keep in mind that this cannot occur at the beginning of an Administration because Congress has not confirmed the Cabinet officers and department heads. For example, Neil Jacobs hasn't even had his Senate hearing regarding his nomination to become head of NOAA.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Many experienced insiders say, "In Washington, nothing succeeds like failure." Our intelligence agencies, in spite of many clues plus phone calls from concerned citizens, flight instructors, etc., failed to warn us of September 11. Instead of people being fired, hundreds of billions were ladled onto the intelligence and FBI's already large budgets.

While I have written a book, When the Sirens Were Silent, and done everything I can to prevent another mega-tornado (or similar) disaster by campaigning for a NDRB (for 13 years), it may be that a preventable mega-disaster is the only thing that will get D.C.'s attention.

Please keep in mind that FEMA should be pared down to a small federal disaster logistics/red tape cutting (only) or closed altogether for the good it does.

NOAA should be drastically cut with the NWS removed from their purview. Please see: Let's Get Serious About the National Weather Service

Randy, if you or anyone else has plans for what the future of disaster forecasting/handling should look like, please share them! I sometimes feel I am taking up too much of the discussion.

You are the real expert in this area because you have more experience on this subject than probably all of us combined and have devoted your career to broadcasting and private-sector consulting meteorology. I certainly defer to your knowledge and viewpoints, and have learned much from your posts (and reading your excellent books, BTW)! Learning is a two-way street, so please do not feel that you are taking up too much of the discussion or "howling into a vacuum chamber" here. You certainly are not!

I agree with you totally about FEMA. Florida residents are still having to deal with unfulfilled claims from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and the red tape is very frustrating to deal with. There's got to be a better way, but the private sector is not filling this need adequately and property insurers are making repairs almost impossible unless the property owners are able to afford the highest insurance rates in the U.S. What's the answer to fix that rampant problem? The Florida Legislature obviously has no answer and is no help at all, and Citizens, the state's insurance backstop, is already hemorrhaging with budget overruns.

As long as observation data-collection, forecasting and warning functions are adequately provided by the NWS, a case can be made for it to be independent of the administrative/research parts of NOAA. Again, your point is well-taken. But why is Washington, DC, not listening?

We all agree that the federal government is too top-heavy with unnecessary programs and aging or even obsolete technology in some cases. Not to mention fraud and bloated labor payrolls. We can no longer afford the $30T+ price tag. It will not be easy or quick to reduce its size and cost. But one thing is certain: the "axe first and ask questions later" approach that we are witnessing now from the DOGE may very likely never fully achieve its desired result of slimming down our federal bureaucracy and may eventually do more harm to the public than good.

 

[Jamie H]

Austerity is always hard, but ultimately the federal govt has to get a handle on spending one way or another.

My only real critique is starting with outsiders making the cuts vs those knowledgeable in the daily processes and service. If we are currently running at a ~28% federal budget deficit, a blanket order should have come down on all departments to reduce their budgets by 30% by a certain date or else the DOGE hammer comes down on them in this fashion. Starting with the hammer first seems crude, ripe for abuse, and a recipe for unintended consequences.

Here in the UK after the global financial crash, our government took a different approach to the US. Since then we've had constant cuts to spending, and all that has done is increase the defect, stagnate wages, and lead to a rise in things like negative health outcomes because people can't get the services they need.

It's a complex situation, but I can say for sure that arbitrary cuts do significant harm to the general population.

 

[Mike Smith]

Dr. Cliff Mass wrote the following to a Listserv yesterday evening. I believe his counsel is wise:

Subject: Reality and Opportunity

We are all scientists and we are trained to deal with reality. To propose hypotheses and to test them. We need to do the same in the current situation.

There are lots of worries about NOAA being terminated by the administration. Reality: this can not happen because NOAA is enabled and tasked by legislation....lots of legislation. NOAA is not going anywhere. The observational systems overseen by NOAA are not going anywhere.

There are all kinds of diabolical suggestions on this list of the private sector secretly rubbing their hands about NOAA/NWS demise. There is absolutely no evidence of this. The private sector folks I have talked to strongly reject this view. I believe them.

We are clearly at a revolutionary moment....a time of rapid change. We need to understand this and manage the situation for an optimal outcome. We need to be honest about the current situation.

There has been bureaucratic stagnation and inefficiency on the government side of our field. Anyone want to deny this? US Government NWP is not longer world class. Cooperation with NCAR and the University community has been inadequate. The move to testing AI prediction in government has been slow. Too many government agencies were doing the same thing. There are inefficient bureaucratic structures in NOAA and other agencies. The NWS office/region structure is dated and inefficient. Anyone want to argue with this? We can fix these issues if we have the will...this is opportunity.

The current administration is a revolutionary group.....and idealistic. As idealistic as we are. They know the Federal bureaucracy has grown too big and inefficient. They are going to do cuts....this is going to happen. But they don't have the knowledge to do it correctly or surgically in our field. We do. Thus, there is opportunity....if we can help them make the changes in a good way.

Many of our folks want to sign petitions. Say no to change. Fight! This will go nowhere. It will only convince the administration that we happy, fat campers with the old system. They will simply push us aside and certainly will not take our protestations serious.

Only if we acknowledge that change is needed and offer assistance in doing it right will we be at the table.

The AMS would be a very good group to organize some an offer, something I have tried to convince the Council to do. I even wrote a draft. But the Exec. Committee decided to do something else.

Finally, if one reads Elon Musk's bio, it is clear how he likes to work....fire folks and make fundamental change, with the knowledge that there are always mistakes. He gave the number..about 20% of the decisions will be mistake that require repair. And, with evidence, he is very willing to reverse the errors. Well, they have made mistakes. Are going to tell them explicitly what mistakes they have make...and how to fix them?

We can go to protests (as some of my friends did at NOAA HQ yesterday) or we can write letters to the White House + DOGE + Congress with constructive suggestions.

Which do you think is more likely to be effective?
I just left a long and detailed message to Elon's DOGE. You can do so here: Contact Us I recommend you do the same but make it constructive and detailed as possible.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Thank you, Mike, for helping to lead the charge against Musk and his DOGE puppets! I am in the process of writing an alternative plan to the DOGE's "hatchet" job and will communicate its details to only the very few Florida Congressional representatives whom I trust to take it seriously. I feel that it would be ineffective to write the White House or Musk (who is an un-elected sycophant for the President) because they will totally dismiss outright any criticism of what they are doing. That approach is a total waste of time, IMHO. A better approach would be to contact select House reps who are ranking members on Appropriation, Science, Technology, Environment, or Commerce Committees or that have direct oversight of the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages government-wide cost-minimizing policies and handles other management tasks, such as federal procurement. Also, it might not be a bad idea to reach out to open-minded, influential House reps who are not part of the MAGA crowd, or are in the other political party, even if not from one's own state. At least those people may actually read our comments, suggestions, and proposals. Ideally, one or two of them finally takes on Musk!