Even for CNN, that was one of the most one-sided articles I have ever read. It quoted Spinrad, the former, meteorologically incompetent, and highly political head of NOAA,
but none of the current management of NOAA.
Second, it didn't explain why it was more difficult to hire back the meteorologists because (liberal) CNN probably didn't like the answer: private sector meteorology often pays more with more rewarding work and this latest "government shutdown" finally made it obvious that government work is
not more secure than atmospheric science work in the private sector.
In the 35 years I ran WeatherData, I can't tell you the number of times I heard (often from childless people in their 20's, the people who should be the least worried about job security), "Your job offer is superior in every way to the NWS's but I worry about job security." I even had a few people tell me, "My dream has always been to work for the NWS but you are making it difficult because you pay so much more than they do!" [It is a rough world out there!
]
A fair article would have pointed this out and also would have discussed the various proposals asking the question as to whether the current structure of the NWS is appropriate going forward. Do we really believe NWS should take the time to make multiple cutesy graphics per shift but not launch rawinsones?
Good points, Mike.
One reason for the delay was the govt shutdown, which impacted all govt agencies. So the slow to hire narrative singling out the NWS is cherry-picking. Despite they claim they said the NWS continue processing applications during the shutdown, it can only go so far b/c OPM operations are significantly curtailed during a shutdown regardless. The complete process goes far beyond the NWS as an agency for hiring. And I know one can go into the reasons and causes of the shutdown, but that's a completely difference subject and not relevant here (although some would try to make it so).
And really, this is recycled news. These cuts and rehires were already covered ad nauseam months ago. You see this a lot in journalism and the MSM these days, recycling old news and bring up canned tropes, as if there not enough new news domestically and internationally out there to cover? It is *lazy* journalism.
And what does, "a cold, snowy winter looms" have to do with this? First, we don't know that yet. Just b/c it has been cold so far in the East (bias due to population off the top), does not automatically mean the rest of the winter will be cold, or snowy for that matter. This is meaningless "throwing irrelevant information on the pile" to push more negativity to the already biased narrative put forth here. Second, the NWS should be properly staffed regardless of how the wx will or not will be. We know that impactful wx will occur, so don't insult the reader's intelligence.
From the article:
"going into yet another critical storm season with more than a dozen forecast offices forced to get by with serious staff
vacancies, potentially undermining the accuracy of forecasts and warnings during powerful winter storms."
Speculation, we don't know that will actually occur, or be significant enough to make any noticeable difference. And w/ the vacancies that has existed for many months, has there been a significant decline in accuracy or products overall? And some quote this specific case or that, but there are busts and misses all the time, so how does one know any of these actually would have not occurred anyway if the NWS was fully staffed? Again, speculation here.
Not saying the NWS should not be fully staffed and I agree having so many vacancies is not good, but this excessive gloom and doom as to overall impact to products and services all too often is grossly exaggerated.
They said the same thing as the 2025 hurricane season was upon us, and were there any issues overall? NHC was staffed well, just w/ typical vacancies you'd see in any office w/ dozens of staff, yet that was pushed as a potential serious degradation of products and services for the hurricane season. We avoided any U.S. hurricane landfall, but that was incidental and is beside the point. Far too often we get "what if's and "could be's," never mind biased and agenda-laden narratives laced w/ inaccuracies
From the article:
"Winter storms can be deadly, and short staffing at the NWS has the potential to erode forecast
accuracy and delay warnings, experts said."
No kidding. Tell us something we do not know. Stop insulting the public's intelligence w/ the obvious. Typical drama-infused canned writing.
Linked the article was this story from Oct:
This is incorrect, the former typhoon approached *upstream* of western AK, so missing RAOBs to the east would have no noticeable impact on forecasts. The models still would have forecasted and intense ET transition and very high impact.
From the article:
"as initial model projections had the forecasts suggesting the worst conditions would strike farther to the south and west than they did. Models like the NWS’ Global Forecast System (GFS) consistently showed a stronger storm to the northwest of where it eventually struck. The communities that ended up seeing the worst storm surge flooding were not in the original forecasts."
Can one objectively say the lack of RAOBs was the reason why the GFS had an inaccurate forecast? The GFS, like any model, has its issues and biases. And acting like the GFS operates in vacuum. The are many other models available for the NWS and all, let alone ensemble runs, that give us a much better idea of operational forecast model issues and shortcomings in any given situation. And this ignores the actual subjective skill of the meteorlogists making the forecast. We are not robots that just blindly take model output and run w/ that!
And the title of the article and what they say in it:
“I’m sure it had some impact,” the official told CNN, though the errors the GFS made were within the average error for the model.
The title blames Trump's cuts budget cuts directly, and yet the GFS error was within the avg error for the model. See the deceptive and manipulative narrative put forth here? They know most ppl will just see the title of the article, and not read the article itself, or just skim over it, missing the details. This is deplorable journalism and reeks of bias and agenda, never mind overly-dramatic headlines for clicks and likes.
The content of MSM articles is one issue, but an even bigger issue is *how* they are written and crafted/edited for max effect. This isn't informing the public, it is insidious manipulation to skew reality/truth b/c of agenda/ideology and the like.
