Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Randy Zipser]

Can you show me where DOGE has cut these launches? I have been sifting through the doge.gov website but don't see it. If the inference is that X$ has been cut and the agency has used its discretion in that way, that's fine. I get it.

There can be discretion in how to meet mandated cuts. In NJ our school district budget failed at the polls and by state law the budget went to the Township government for review. As Board President, I flatly told the Mayor in a public meeting that he could tell us how much to cut but he could not tell us where to cut. (Boy was he mad.)

If NOAA/NWS decides to cut launches in response to budget cuts that is their business but the agency answers to its stakeholders for that discretion.

I had heard about the Alaska balloon-schedule cut a couple of days ago on CNN, I believe it was. Mike Smith also referenced this in his link on Post #53 above, as well as the other cuts in other states, which I was not aware of. Those were the basis of the remark that I made in Post #56.

 

[Boris Konon]

Here is a study on what reduction of soundings to once day in Russia in 2015 did. Degraded ECMWF forecasts.

Global radiosonde network under pressure

www.ecmwf.int

 

[Randy Zipser]

I had heard about the Alaska balloon-schedule cut a couple of days ago on CNN, I believe it was. Mike Smith also referenced this in his link on Post #53 above, as well as the other cuts in other states, which I was not aware of. Those were the basis of the remark that I made in Post #56.

Here are a couple of recent video news stories about the "suspension of weather balloon releases." The YouTube one about Alaska was from March 11, 2025, and the KETV story related to Omaha, NE, and Rapid City, SD, was from yesterday (3/20/25). Both stories clearly state that the balloon-launch suspensions were due to NWS staffing cuts! Certainly germane to the topic of this thread. Please see the long Google links below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ala...ate=ive&vld=cid:6c472625,vid:-Us06g_4WJc,st:0


Google Search

As a brief side-note to Post #59, when I first created this discussion thread, I knew it might "push the envelope" of controversy: at its core, the principal theme is at the intersection of weather and politics. These are both passionate topics for many ST members, so, understandably, emotions and opinions can sometimes run high! This is a very good thing, IMHO, and ST should be applauded for allowing such open, broad and unfettered discourse. In the case of this thread, however, it may be difficult to not make occasional reference to factual terms, such as DOGE or names of individuals who are associated with the NOAA/NWS staff firings, budget cuts, suspension/abolition of services, etc. What is important here is that the information we all share is really accurate in the sense of more verifiable fact and less unsubstantiated personal opinion. I'm as guilty as any of us who may "blur the line" between the two...but I hope the lively, courteous discussions continue, at least until events in Washington that directly affect NOAA and the NWS simmer down a bit and are no longer part of the daily news headlines. RZ

 

[Boris Konon]

Here are the official PNS announcements stating the RAOB suspensions/reductions.

https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pdf_2025/pns25-17_Suspension_RAOB_Launches_OAX-UNR.pdf

https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pdf_2025/pns25-18_Reduction_RAOB_Launches_ABR_GJT_GRB_APX_LBF_RIW.pdf

 

[Randy Zipser]

Here are a couple of recent video news stories about the "suspension of weather balloon releases." The YouTube one about Alaska was from March 11, 2025, and the KETV story related to Omaha, NE, and Rapid City, SD, was from yesterday (3/20/25). Both stories clearly state that the balloon-launch suspensions were due to NWS staffing cuts! Certainly germane to the topic of this thread. Please see the long Google links below:

Google Search


Google Search

As a brief side-note to Post #59, when I first created this discussion thread, I knew it might "push the envelope" of controversy: at its core, the principal theme is at the intersection of weather and politics. These are both passionate topics for many ST members, so, understandably, emotions and opinions can sometimes run high! This is a very good thing, IMHO, and ST should be applauded for allowing such open, broad and unfettered discourse. In the case of this thread, however, it may be difficult to not make occasional reference to factual terms, such as DOGE or names of individuals who are associated with the NOAA/NWS staff firings, budget cuts, suspension/abolition of services, etc. What is important here is that the information we all share is really accurate in the sense of more verifiable fact and less unsubstantiated personal opinion. I'm as guilty as any of us who may "blur the line" between the two...but I hope the lively, courteous discussions continue, at least until events in Washington that directly affect NOAA and the NWS simmer down a bit and are no longer part of the daily news headlines. RZ

The "Google Search" link above about the KETV news story on March 20th is no longer accessible from that link. However the link below is from late yesterday (3/21) and is a good interview with the Chief Meteorologist of the station, Bill Randby, about the NWS balloon-launch suspensions for Omaha and Rapid City areas:

MSN

 

[Lou Ruh]

... it takes about 15 minutes to prep and do a balloon launch (based on what I have read on NWS websites ...

According to https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01014001curr.pdf ... starting at page E-5 ... it is 45 minutes to do a launch and 17 steps to be done during the observation and 5 post observation steps. Unless this doc has been superseded (this is the most recent one I could find), looks like much more than 15 minutes. Not to mention that some of the terminated folks were Electronics Technicians so if there are issues with all of the electronics involved with balloon soundings, that could also present problems.

 

[Randy Jennings]

According to https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01014001curr.pdf ... starting at page E-5 ... it is 45 minutes to do a launch and 17 steps to be done during the observation and 5 post observation steps. Unless this doc has been superseded (this is the most recent one I could find), looks like much more than 15 minutes. Not to mention that some of the terminated folks were Electronics Technicians so if there are issues with all of the electronics involved with balloon soundings, that could also present problems.

Good find. In looking back I think the Google AI technology picked up something on a NWS website that was referring to a single step in the process and mistook it for the entire process. That is much more in line with my experience in doing HAB (High Altitude Balloon) launches myself.

 

[Mike Smith]

To further confirm this is malicious compliance, I asked one of my sources whether the NWS has cancelled or suspended its IDSS program. That's the one where NWS meteorologists go offsite to support things like NASCAR races, Super Bowl, etc.

I was told IDSS was still operative and, "if asked, we will still support our partners."

If NWS has sufficient manpower to send people offsite, they have 45 minutes to launch rawinsondes.

 

[Randy Zipser]

This post overlaps both the topic of this thread (DOGE cuts) and one I posted on March 20th about the NETFLIX Documentary About the Joplin Tornado on 05/22/2011, which included a link to a NIST document about that tornado event. The NIST is part of the Department of Commerce, as is NOAA. The attachment below, published online by the WIRED Newsletter on March 25th, relates to plans to cut a team responsible for maintenance of critical atomic measurement data at the NIST. That's pretty scary stuff! Could a team that does critical-situation, weather-event analysis (like the Joplin tornado) be next on the NIST "chopping block?"

 

[Mike Smith]

relates to plans to cut a team responsible for maintenance of critical atomic measurement data at the NIST.

Randy brings up an interesting point. Why does government need to do NIST? The answer is, they don't It can be done and done well by the private sector.

My son is the CEO of a company that does engineering standards work. Had this work, similar to NIST's, been done by the government and the government proposed to privatize it, everyone politically left of center would demand, "the government must do this!"

Here's a bit of meteorological history that is pertinent: When NBC's Today debuted in 1952, did you know who did the weather for them? Jimmy Fiedler, a meteorologist with the Weather Bureau. Soon, other programs made similar requests. But, the WB didn't have the manpower. The Bureau made a decision to leave it to the private sector.

Now, fast forward 73 years: Assume for a moment the 1952 decision had gone the other way: for all of this time the Bureau/NWS would have had dozens of meteorologists who did television at all levels, then Trump decided that the NWS should no longer do this. TV stations would have to hire their own weather staffs. The outcry would be deafening! "The private sector can't do that, don't you know that lives depend on TV weather warnings?!" Yet, as we know, having TV stations use their own meteorologists has worked out fine.

This is the issue I have with some aspects of the hue and cry over the NOAA layoffs. There are many things in NWS and, especially in NOAA, the private sector can do just fine. [Remember, I am stating facts not opinions, I do not want the NWS out of the public warning business.] It is a fact that most private sector forecasts are more accurate than the NWS's ( Weather Forecast and Weather Forecast Accuracy for Your City , insert your Zip Code). AccuWeather's tornado warnings (I can't speak for other commercial weather companies that issue tornado warnings) are more accurate than the NWS's.

Everyone forgets that NEXRAD data had to be paid for by everyone outside NWS, FAA and DoD for its first ten years and it was very expensive. Yet, people didn't have to pay to watch television weathercasts or for the warnings you saw on TV during that period.

That's why arguments like these www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUFogyZMXhQ are so disingenuous. The public would not have to pay for forecasts if the NWS were privatized (again, I'm not arguing for that!). You can get AW's, The Weather Channel's, etc., forecasts for free now. That wouldn't change under privatization -- which I hope will not happen.

 

[John Farley]

Randy brings up an interesting point. Why does government need to do NIST? The answer is, they don't It can be done and done well by the private sector.

My son is the CEO of a company that does engineering standards work. Had this work, similar to NIST's, been done by the government and the government proposed to privatize it, everyone politically left of center would demand, "the government must do this!"

Here's a bit of meteorological history that is pertinent: When NBC's Today debuted in 1952, did you know who did the weather for them? Jimmy Fiedler, a meteorologist with the Weather Bureau. Soon, other programs made similar requests. But, the WB didn't have the manpower. The Bureau made a decision to leave it to the private sector.

Now, fast forward 73 years: Assume for a moment the 1952 decision had gone the other way: for all of this time the Bureau/NWS would have had dozens of meteorologists who did television at all levels, then Trump decided that the NWS should no longer do this. TV stations would have to hire their own weather staffs. The outcry would be deafening! "The private sector can't do that, don't you know that lives depend on TV weather warnings?!" Yet, as we know, having TV stations use their own meteorologists has worked out fine.

This is the issue I have with some aspects of the hue and cry over the NOAA layoffs. There are many things in NWS and, especially in NOAA, the private sector can do just fine. [Remember, I am stating facts not opinions, I do not want the NWS out of the public warning business.] It is a fact that most private sector forecasts are more accurate than the NWS's ( Weather Forecast and Weather Forecast Accuracy for Your City , insert your Zip Code). AccuWeather's tornado warnings (I can't speak for other commercial weather companies that issue tornado warnings) are more accurate than the NWS's.

Everyone forgets that NEXRAD data had to be paid for by everyone outside NWS, FAA and DoD for its first ten years and it was very expensive. Yet, people didn't have to pay to watch television weathercasts or for the warnings you saw on TV during that period.

That's why arguments like these www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUFogyZMXhQ are so disingenuous. The public would not have to pay for forecasts if the NWS were privatized (again, I'm not arguing for that!). You can get AW's, The Weather Channel's, etc., forecasts for free now. That wouldn't change under privatization -- which I hope will not happen.

While Mike makes some valid points here, there are many things that government does that would not be free and/or widely available to the general public (or would not get done at all) if government did not do it. NWS forecasts and warnings are one example, but there are also many outside weather. I do not want to live in a country where only rich people can get various services they need, which, to me means that, while needs for government services may change, there will always be things that only get done, or only are available to the general public, if government does them. Inside and outside weather.

Oh, and one other thing - I have to pay to get TWC or Accuweather on my TV, because they are not available if you do not have cable or satellite service, which is far from free. So I do not get their forecasts for free. Maybe in some cases online, but the trend for most online information seems to be away from that.

 

[Mike Smith]

there are many things that government does that would not be free and/or widely available to the general public (or would not get done at all) if government did not do it. NWS forecasts and warnings are one example,

I do not want to live in a country where only rich people can get various services they need,

I have to pay to get TWC or Accuweather on my TV, because they are not available if you do not have cable or satellite service, which is far from free. So I do not get their forecasts for free.

C'mon, John. You know this isn't true.

You may personally choose not to get free private sector forecasts but that doesn't mean they are not available to you. Below are screen captures from AccuWeather's (left) free online forecasts and The Weather Channel's free on-air (television) product. You don't even need the (also free) app, just go to AccuWeather.com or Weather.com (or dozens of other sites of weather companies). If you don't want to see the tiny commercials on the AW app, it will cost you just $2/month. You hardly have to be "rich" to afford commercial-free weather services.

As you live in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, I looked up the accuracy rankings (below). AW is #3 and TWC is #2. If you want to use NWS's inferior forecasts (they are #8), that is your privilege. Some of us want the best forecasts available.

But, please stop with the "I don't want to live..." business. All of us pay (directly or through insurance) for NOAA Weather radios, ambulance rides, doctor's care, home fire extinguishers, etc., etc. Whether it be insurance companies, commercials or whatever, there will always be free or nearly free forecasts and storm warnings.

 

[John Farley]

Just because you can get some basic products for free now does not mean you will always be able to. I can remember when you could get newspaper articles free from almost anywhere on the internet. Not any more. And you are talking about forecasts, not warnings. Without NWS, they would be hard to come by where I live, where pretty much any TV requires cable, satellite, internet, etc. And internet is not free, either. You know perfectly well that if you do anything to reduce the number of ways people can get warnings, feser will.

 

[Mike Smith]

And you are talking about forecasts, not warnings. Without NWS, they would be hard to come by where I live, where pretty much any TV requires cable, satellite, internet, etc. And internet is not free, either.

If you had read what I wrote, you would find that I was talking about warnings as well as forecasts. My words, above, "there will always be free or nearly free forecasts and storm warnings." Are you unaware this is the case now?

Without NWS, they would be hard to come by where I live, where pretty much any TV requires cable, satellite, internet, etc. And internet is not free, either.

Today, we don't get NWS warnings without TV, cable, satellite, weather radio, etc. All of which cost money. Almost everyone, disadvantaged or not, has a smartphone which is often the fastest source of warnings.

The era of storm forecasts and warnings separate from the NWS has been the case since the 50's.

Example: The day of the big El Reno Tornado (2013), St. Louis County, MO was struck by an EF-3 tornado with a second EF-3 across the River in Illinois. www.weather.gov/lsx/05_31_2013

KMOX (#1 radio station in STL at the time) -- an AccuWeather client -- had me on the morning of the 30th and 31st of May to talk about the tornado threat.

• 30th: NWS was forecasting a 15% chance of tornadoes in STL (as understood by the news staff). I agreed there was a major threat and discussed this on KMOX's newscasts.
• 31st: NWS, unfortunately, lowered the STL tornado risk to 5% and the newspeople were making a big deal of the lesser threat. When I came on, live, they were astonished that I said AW did not think the risk had lowered and that I thought there was a "high" chance of tornadoes in the STL Bi-State area that evening. The newscaster pushed back -- hard -- with, "How can you have a different tornado forecast than the NWS?" I explained.
• At 8:05pm, the first tornado in the immediate metro touched down in St. Charles Co. and moved across the airport (seems to be a tornado magnet) in STL Co. and then across the economically disadvantaged areas of north STL County. The disadvantaged got the same quality forecast from KMOX as the rich.
• The tornado was rain-wrapped at times, so the "heads up" was especially important. They got it from AccuWeather.

If you watch OKC TV today, you will see them say, "I'm issuing a tornado warning for eastern Oklahoma County...." They often do not even use NWS TOR's. This is also done in TUL and a few other markets.

I can cite many other examples.

Please comment from the point of view of how things actually are than from the point of view the NWS has a monopoly on tornado forecasts and warnings today. They do not and never have.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Randy brings up an interesting point. Why does government need to do NIST? The answer is, they don't It can be done and done well by the private sector.

My son is the CEO of a company that does engineering standards work. Had this work, similar to NIST's, been done by the government and the government proposed to privatize it, everyone politically left of center would demand, "the government must do this!"

Here's a bit of meteorological history that is pertinent: When NBC's Today debuted in 1952, did you know who did the weather for them? Jimmy Fiedler, a meteorologist with the Weather Bureau. Soon, other programs made similar requests. But, the WB didn't have the manpower. The Bureau made a decision to leave it to the private sector.

Now, fast forward 73 years: Assume for a moment the 1952 decision had gone the other way: for all of this time the Bureau/NWS would have had dozens of meteorologists who did television at all levels, then Trump decided that the NWS should no longer do this. TV stations would have to hire their own weather staffs. The outcry would be deafening! "The private sector can't do that, don't you know that lives depend on TV weather warnings?!" Yet, as we know, having TV stations use their own meteorologists has worked out fine.

This is the issue I have with some aspects of the hue and cry over the NOAA layoffs. There are many things in NWS and, especially in NOAA, the private sector can do just fine. [Remember, I am stating facts not opinions, I do not want the NWS out of the public warning business.] It is a fact that most private sector forecasts are more accurate than the NWS's ( Weather Forecast and Weather Forecast Accuracy for Your City , insert your Zip Code). AccuWeather's tornado warnings (I can't speak for other commercial weather companies that issue tornado warnings) are more accurate than the NWS's.

Everyone forgets that NEXRAD data had to be paid for by everyone outside NWS, FAA and DoD for its first ten years and it was very expensive. Yet, people didn't have to pay to watch television weathercasts or for the warnings you saw on TV during that period.

That's why arguments like these www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUFogyZMXhQ are so disingenuous. The public would not have to pay for forecasts if the NWS were privatized (again, I'm not arguing for that!). You can get AW's, The Weather Channel's, etc., forecasts for free now. That wouldn't change under privatization -- which I hope will not happen.

Excellent points, all, Mike. What I am especially interested to know is what the functional or operational relationships are between the various component agencies within the current U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). NOAA ended up in the DOC because of an earlier name change (was ESSA), then a few years later got caught up in another reorganization resulting in the DOC. It makes no sense to me why NOAA's missions (which are primarily scientific in nature) are shoved away into the DOC (whose missions are principally trade and economics). Now, consider this same "historical" reason for the other agencies comprising the current DOC (such as NIST), and the picture that emerges is a "mish-mash" of loosely-related parts stashed away under the Commerce "umbrella" that may or may not have overlapping (or even necessary) functions nowadays.

So, there would certainly be some merit in breaking up the present DOC and privatizing some its separate parts (like NOAA and NIST, which may have some overlapping duties?). This would also save the taxpayers perhaps a significant amount of money, one of the main objectives of the DOGE. The end result of that privatization process would be a leaner, more efficient Commerce Department which is entirely focused on trade, business, and economic agendas. Perhaps, that concept is just too logical, which is why nobody in the U.S. Congress has ever thought to look into how the present-day DOC is structured. But, the Musk "chainsaw gang" sure noticed right away!

BTW, I've excluded the NWS from the discussion above because the NWS, IMO, may be more effective on the public's payroll, due to the large number of different services they provide daily to both public and private interests, as well having the capital outlays to be able to consistently provide such services. And, a strong argument can also be made that the NWS is absolutely crucial for keeping U.S. citizens safe from many types of natural disasters. So, I agree that that there's no need to rush to privatize the NWS, just perhaps make it a bit more efficient in executing its primary mission of observational-data collection for forecasting and warning the public when necessary. The research parts could be farmed out to academic institutions (public and private) and specialty labs (which could also be public-, private-, or a partnership-funded). Why does all this seem so simple to us, but so difficult to figure out in Washington?