Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Mike Smith]

So a solution would be to update tornado warnings more often, but that depends on the situation and highly subjective, let alone a tornadic supercell could weaken abruptly. Also, do the resources exist for more frequent updates, esp. in big outbreak days? And in the end, we are still back to the same problem about some locations just outside a tornado warning that will eventually get a direct hit.

Hi Boris,

AccuWeather's Wichita-based business warning group managed to issue an accurate tornado warning for Lake City before the NWS. They do international storm warnings out of a single (large) room. From what I have seen, the NWS has complicated its warning process and doesn't have software that is anywhere near state-of-the-art.

Regardless, the NWS's own figures show their tornado warnings were much more accurate (~40%) and timely 15 years ago. They used to be able to do it and do it consistently. All MEM NWS had to do on the 2nd was extend the polygon about 15 minutes after the original warning for Craighead County was issued.

As I said in my piece, two major things have changed:

• Retirements of my generation of meteorologists who were highly trained and experienced in radar interpretation and storm warnings.
• The significant extra burden of IDSS.

I proposed positive solutions.

 

[Ken Perrin]

Hi Boris,

AccuWeather's Wichita-based business warning group managed to issue an accurate tornado warning for Lake City before the NWS. They do international storm warnings out of a single (large) room. From what I have seen, the NWS has complicated its warning process and doesn't have software that is anywhere near state-of-the-art.

Regardless, the NWS's own figures show their tornado warnings were much more accurate (~40%) and timely 15 years ago. They used to be able to do it and do it consistently. All MEM NWS had to do on the 2nd was extend the polygon about 15 minutes after the original warning for Craighead County was issued.

As I said in my piece, two major things have changed:

• Retirements of my generation of meteorologists who were highly trained and experienced in radar interpretation and storm warnings.
• The significant extra burden of IDSS.

I proposed positive solutions.

I believe that they have cut the budget, if not outright canceled the training for radar interpretation and warnings. I hope that I'm wrong and misread that, and it's not true.

 

[Mike Smith]

I believe that they have cut the budget, if not outright canceled the training for radar interpretation and warnings. I hope that I'm wrong and misread that, and it's not true.

There is no formalized training for radar interpretation and warnings. There is a "do it yourself" course, at best. I have been told by a NWS met who witnessed it that a new NWS met at his office was "certified" on radar/warnings by merely sitting next to a senior met issuing warnings for two hours!

 

[Ken Perrin]

There is no formalized training for radar interpretation and warnings. There is a "do it yourself" course, at best. I have been told by a NWS met who witnessed it that a new NWS met at his office was "certified" on radar/warnings by merely sitting next to a senior met issuing warnings for two hours!

Glad to be wrong.

 

[JamesCaruso]

@Mike Smith i was just reading your Lake City blog post that you linked to above, and read the footnote about the St. Louis situation. You wrote that NWS focused resources on the Cardinals game, even though the Cardinals were already being advised by AccuWeather. So how does IDSS work, in that scenario did the Cardinals request NWS services for the game (even though they had AccuWeather), or does NWS proactively decide to support large public events?

 

[Mike Smith]

So how does IDSS work, in that scenario did the Cardinals request NWS services for the game (even though they had AccuWeather), or does NWS proactively decide to support large public events?

Good morning, James,

Please let me give you two examples: The STL NWS had been serving the Cards for years. But, the Cards felt they needed a dedicated service, thus they hired us. As I understand it, because they hadn't anticipated the high winds (peak gust 86 mph), they assumed no one else did, so they picked up the phone and called the Cards. Evidently, there were two phone calls. One of those calls was before the SVR was issued.

Here's another example that caused serious problems. The NWS Service Assessment of the April 27, 2011 Tornado Outbreak includes a reference to the MIC at BHM making an impromptu call to the president of the University of Alabama to tell him a tornado was approaching the campus. The president started making phone calls to various university personnel. The problem was that we had already sent a warning to the campus emergency manager who had set the official university response in motion. If you are an employee of the university do you follow the orders of the EM or the president? [Note: the online version has been changed from the original. I'm guessing it is because of our criticism of that call. It now says the MIC's call set the university's "Weather Ready Nation" plan into motion. However, WRN didn't exist until the following December.]

Part of the issue is the NWS's culture where they believe that private sector meteorology is merely a repackaging of what they produce. So, in the era of IDSS, they solicit "customers." Of course, the NWS doesn't know whether these companies or emergency managers have private sector weather consultants.

In 2013, I was invited to attend a national NWS meeting in KC pertaining to "warning simplification." There were 50 MIC's there along with a handful of broadcast and private sector meteorologists. Over and over I (and others) had to explain that while there were some companies like DTN that repacked their warnings, there were TV stations and private sector meteorologists that created independent storm warnings. It was like I was speaking German! They just couldn't grasp it and I am not exaggerating.

One other thing: I have been contacted by a couple of mets who read the "Lake City" piece. One says that I omitted an issue and that is the NWS's fragile communications system that seems to crash frequently during severe weather events because it cannot handle the higher level of traffic. That forces a nearby office (which may have severe weather of its own) to take cover, thus overwhelming the staff.

10:26am Addendum: I just now received a comment to my blog piece that reads:
Your comments regarding IDSS are spot on. If people knew how little time and effort is spent on improving forecasts and warnings for the general public they would be appalled. From my experience, the overall majority of NWS employees want to do the right thing and have a good work ethic, however, there is no incentive for improving warning skills or punishment for poor performers. A pervasive mentality of "better safe than sorry", often communicated by so called "partners", is used as an excuse for the high false alarm rates of many meteorologists.

FYI: I've now heard from five NWS meteorologists and all agree with what I have written about the NWS's issues.

 

[Jamie H]

Is there anything in legislation which prohibits the NWS (or local NWS offices) to undertake commerical activities for profit? Ie, could it provide a dedicated service for the Cardinals much like other companies do?

 

[Mike Smith]

Is there anything in legislation which prohibits the NWS (or local NWS offices) to undertake commerical activities for profit? Ie, could it provide a dedicated service for the Cardinals much like other companies do?

While the British Meteorological Office and the French meteorological services have for-profit arms, there is nothing in the NWS enabling legislation which allows them to do so. There would be a collapse in support for the NWS if that were allowed.

I'm confused by your phrase, "much like other companies" The NWS is a government agency of the United States under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Under the U.S. Constitution, there must enabled legislation for the government to do something.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think Jamie just meant, could the NWS as a governmental agency provide a similar service, for compensation, like companies do.

 

[Mike Smith]

could the NWS as a governmental agency provide a similar service, for compensation, like companies do[?]

Unless Congress changes the NWS enabling legislation, they cannot charge for their forward looking products.

However: If Congress required the NWS to stop offering free services to companies and agencies other than the federal government and Congress require fully costed overhead (where the meteorologist's salaries, desks, etc.; but not radar or satellites which are common to everyone) and required them to make a profit or shut down in, say, 5 years, it would be the happiest day in the history of commercial meteorology!

Given that AW, TWC, etc., etc. forecasts are already more accurate than the NWS's (see: Weather Forecast and Weather Forecast Accuracy for Your City ), the elimination of "but I can get free forecasts from the government" barrier to sales would produce joy and elation.

 

[Boris Konon]

Unless Congress changes the NWS enabling legislation, they cannot charge for their forward looking products.

However: If Congress required the NWS to stop offering free services to companies and agencies other than the federal government and Congress require fully costed overhead (where the meteorologist's salaries, desks, etc.; but not radar or satellites which are common to everyone) and required them to make a profit or shut down in, say, 5 years, it would be the happiest day in the history of commercial meteorology!

Given that AW, TWC, etc., etc. forecasts are already more accurate than the NWS's (see: Weather Forecast and Weather Forecast Accuracy for Your City ), the elimination of "but I can get free forecasts from the government" barrier to sales would produce joy and elation.

Mike, correct me if I am interpreting your statements above. It is not 100% clear to me what you are saying.

I can not see how it would be acceptable to the public on so many levels that all the data provided for free by the govt (well, not really "free,"
but as noted before the several dollars a year tax from each that goes to the NWS/NESDIS cost/benefit ratio is among the best out there for *any* govt agency). Taking away something that has always been free, as weather data/forecasts in the U.S. has been for most of the Internet's existence, would not go over well, to say the least.

As noted, some aspects of the private sector do provide better services for weather, but at what cost, and I mean that literally as to $$ that so many people can not afford, yet they may be asked to pay for basic weather services, never mind "premium" weather services? This is political, social, and economic negative scenario across the board.

Despite the flaws/issues, NWS/NESDIS is of enormous value to this country.

 

[Boris Konon]

AARRRGGGHHHHH.....

See Jamie's post above. It inevitably seems that when I answer one of these questions it immediately goes to, "You are advocating..." or "are you advocating?" the end of free services. No. Absolutely Not! Never!!!

As I have probably written 100 times (really!) since Trump was elected, there should always be a free NWS to provide quality data, forecasts and warnings for the public-at-large. HOWEVER, the NWS has never had the resources to offer IDSS and the new school being set up to educate NWS mets on being better IDSS mets is a terrible waste of scarce resources -- especially since there are critical storm warning issues that extend well beyond tornado warnings.

I just don't know how much clearer I can make my position.

Okay, dinner's on the table and I will chill out.

Thanks for the clarification. Just this statement was a bit ambiguous to me.

"the elimination of "but I can get free forecasts from the government" barrier to sales would produce joy and elation."

Are you only referencing IDSS here, and things the private sector is often fit to do better (i.e. wx monitoring/forecasts for the PGA tour or MLB games, as two examples).

The "sales" your mention, it is in reference to as a revenue source for the private sector businesses?

I am in favor of the public/private sector mix as to the wx business. It has worked quite well for some time.

 

[Mike Smith]

Is there anything in legislation which prohibits the NWS (or local NWS offices) to undertake commerical activities for profit? Ie, could it provide a dedicated service for the Cardinals much like other companies do?

I think Jamie just meant, could the NWS as a governmental agency provide a similar service, for compensation, like companies do.

Thanks for the clarification. Just this statement was a bit ambiguous to me.

"the elimination of "but I can get free forecasts from the government" barrier to sales would produce joy and elation."

Are you only referencing IDSS here, and things the private sector is often fit to do better (i.e. wx monitoring/forecasts for the PGA tour or MLB games, as two examples).

Hi Boris, just because I write something could be done doesn't mean I think it should be done.

With the exception of IDSS and similar NWS activities I'm perfectly content with the current public/private sector balance. IDSS, which was never a good idea, needs to go away in an era of scare resources.

 

[Randy Jennings]

I belive that IDSS started out as support to government agencies in disasters such as wildfires. From there it grew and i don't disagree that it likely has gotten out of hand. Technically I think when a NWS Met is on an IDSS assignment at say a sporting event, they are there officially at the request of government public saftey agency and not the team or league. While there has been a lot of studies that say local governments don't get as much out of pro teams as they put into them, they at least make the argument that the teams bring in tax revenues to thd community. As far as federal support goes, most events are not going to go to another country if the NWS doesn't provide IDSS.

I suspect that a lot of the MICs and WCMs question why they approve IDSS support to things like pro sports teams, but i also suspect they consider it a plus for employee morale for their staff.

 

[Mike Smith]

they at least make the argument that the teams bring in tax revenues to thd community

I appreciated your comment. But, as to the above, let the city or county pay for the private sector meteorologist.

However, it is absurd to believe NFL and other pro teams cannot afford private sector support.