Funding for NSSL was almost cut in the 2026 federal budget

[KenMcWatters]

The Trump administration proposed cutting funding for NOAA's research arm in the 2026 budget. This would have included cutting funding for NSSL. These cuts were barely avoided when Congress appropriated the funding, but just for this year:

https://www.kosu.org/politics/2026-01-28/federal-funding-law-includes-money-for-oklahoma-weather-climate-institutions

This, in addition to the Trump administration's efforts to close NCAR, shows a disturbing pattern of hostility to weather research.

 

[Mike Smith]

This, in addition to the Trump administration's efforts to close NCAR, shows a disturbing pattern of hostility to weather research.

Is it that or is that NSSL has been spending a great deal of money and has produced relatively little in the way of useful warning/forecast techniques that past decade?

 

[Randy Zipser]

Is it that or is that NSSL has been spending a great deal of money and has produced relatively little in the way of useful warning/forecast techniques that past decade?

The reason for this might be that there has always been a difference in the research "culture" between NSSL and the SPC, and this difference never really went away even after the these two entities were co-located in Norman in 1997. This could account for why research coming out of Norman during the past decade has not been as singularly focused on severe-storm forecasting and radar applications, which was so frequently the topic during the Doppler radar development years during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Having worked at NSSL during the Tornado Intercept Project (TIP) years of the early 1970s, I recall that comparatively little of the research originating from NSSL was about tornado forecasting, but rather about radar data collection and interpretation of the "new" (at the time) dual-Doppler experiments. Other areas of research at NSSL were broader in scope, attempting to gain a better understanding of severe thunderstorms in general. In other words, NSSL had "cast a much wider net" than SELS back in those early days, and that culture likely remains today.

Below is an AI-prompted summary of the specific mission of the SELS/TDU research program:

The Techniques Development Unit (TDU) at the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) in Kansas City, MO, was established to apply scientific research and computer technology to improve severe weather forecasting, working alongside the Severe Local Storms (SELS) unit. Active during the NSSFC's tenure in Kansas City (1954–1997), the TDU developed diagnostic programs, analyzed forecast errors, and modernized methods for predicting tornadoes and severe thunderstorms.

Key Aspects of the TDU in Kansas City:

• Mission: The TDU focused on reducing subjectivity in forecasting, analyzing prediction errors, and creating objective tools for forecasting severe storms.
• Technological Advancement: They pioneered the application of interactive computer processing to help SELS forecasters interpret environmental data.
• Research & Development: TDU personnel conducted research to better understand the atmospheric, dynamic, and thermodynamic properties of severe storms.
• Operational Support: They developed tools to assist in recognizing convection associated with severe local storms, improving the accuracy of watches and warnings.
• Documentation: The unit produced NOAA Technical Memoranda to quickly disseminate new findings in severe storm meteorology.

The TDU was instrumental in transitioning severe weather forecasting from purely empirical, manual methods to modern, computer-assisted, data-driven techniques. When the NSSFC was reorganized into the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) and moved to Norman, Oklahoma, in 1997, the foundational work of the TDU continued to influence modern forecasting techniques.

 

[Randy Zipser]

The Trump administration proposed cutting funding for NOAA's research arm in the 2026 budget. This would have included cutting funding for NSSL. These cuts were barely avoided when Congress appropriated the funding, but just for this year:

https://www.kosu.org/politics/2026-01-28/federal-funding-law-includes-money-for-oklahoma-weather-climate-institutions

This, in addition to the Trump administration's efforts to close NCAR, shows a disturbing pattern of hostility to weather research.

I agree with your observation, Ken, and I've spoken about this in other past posts.

The current view from the executive branch in Washington is anti-science, anti-education, and particularly anti-climate. We are witnessing the vilification of weather and climate research solely for political purposes. Without adequate funding, these areas of science and education will suffer, or at least be hampered in achieving longer-term goals or obtaining results. So sad...

 

[Mike Smith]

The current view from the executive branch in Washington is anti-science, anti-education, and particularly anti-climate.

As a conservative, I would take issue with this. Consider with regard to science/climate: The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America Consider that the USDA's food pyramid used to have carbs at the top and recommended a "high carb" diet for those who want to lose weight. That advice was exactly wrong.

Why should Trump be "pro-education" when the current education system has taken American students from #1 ranking in the world (1970) into the 40's today?

There is plenty to question the scientific establishment about.

Going back to NSSL for a moment, I appreciate you taking the time to write your reply, Randy. I don't expect NSSL to crank out something every year, but what have they done in the past decade? They championed WoF (starting in December, 2011) and they still don't even run the software on a daily basis! It is a lot easier to talk about how successful it is if it is only run on days which will obviously produce tornadoes which is the current paradigm.

 

[Boris Konon]

As a conservative, I would take issue with this. Consider with regard to science/climate: The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America Consider that the USDA's food pyramid used to have carbs at the top and recommended a "high carb" diet for those who want to lose weight. That advice was exactly wrong.

Why should Trump be "pro-education" when the current education system has taken American students from #1 ranking in the world (1970) into the 40's today?

There is plenty to question the scientific establishment about.

Going back to NSSL for a moment, I appreciate you taking the time to write your reply, Randy. I don't expect NSSL to crank out something every year, but what have they done in the past decade? They championed WoF (starting in December, 2011) and they still don't even run the software on a daily basis! It is a lot easier to talk about how successful it is if it is only run on days which will obviously produce tornadoes which is the current paradigm.

First, let me say I do not like the cuts being proposed to science funding and research. This goes for all agencies in the public and private sector.

That being said, one *must* consider graft/corruption in the govt and the system in general are widespread, and no agency or organization is immune. Yes, I know one could say this is par for the course, and yes, it is (always been that way in ruling bodies throughout human history), however, in recent years, it is very apparent is has gotten *way* out of control (no debating this) and it is severely impacting the well-being of this country. Is anyone going to contest this?

So before getting on a moral high horse and virtue signaling, there is a *lot* more to consider, such as things that are going on behind the scenes we have no idea about the probably are contributing to the graft/corruption. As simplistic as this sounds, “you don’t know what you don’t know” so one needs to careful about passing summary judgement on things that may appear obvious or a “no-brainer" when this or that decision is made or action is taken.

And what is considered or labeled "cuts" by one group can actually (and is in some cases) be getting rid of graft/corruption or ridiculous waste in spending to another group. In the end, we are dealing w/ human nature here, and all the shortcomings and fallacies that come w/ it, esp. when large sums of $$ and power are involved.

And unfortunately, when a system as complex as the govt is so messed up and corrupt in many areas, cleaning it up, so to speak, there is going to be collateral damage (e.g. cuts that should not or do not to need to happen). It is very difficult in some cases for those in charge to determine what is what now, given the extent and complexity of the problems that exist, by default, some bad decisions are going to be made. But you can't just focus on that, esp. how it may impact "you" or your "neck of the woods." One needs to think more large picture and in the abstract as to how this can or will benefit things overall in the long term across the entire govt, and the system. Too often these days, ppl think in the here and now w/ a self-centered me, me, me view of things, running in knee-jerk emotional mode. That's not good, as it impacts rational and objective decision making, among other things.

W/ some actions, yes, you take a "hit" and "suffer" initially, but longer term, you can and do come out ahead. That is hard to see for many b/c again, it is all about the here and now, and the MSM is notorious for pushing this sentiment for biased political reasons on the masses, never mind preying on cognitive bias of recency bias were are all susceptible to.

Regarding the anti-science positions, some of this I think is done b/c of the other side *abusing* the science, such as sticking in your face "the science is settled" concerning climate change and the like. The science is *never* settled, it is always changing/evolving. If it was "settled," it would stop. So one can say this side is anti-science b/c they undermine its very definition, and as a result, they use this to steal/divert literally billions of dollars to try to "fix" a problem that is greatly exaggerated, when that $$ could be better spent elsewhere on the many, many more tangible and fixable problems that exist in the country today. Acting like climate change is the only problem or threat out there is ridiculous.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Great discussions, Mike and Boris, as I had hoped for and expected from you! I do agree with several of the views both of you express above.

What really disappoints me is the disdain in high places of government toward the advancement of science, regardless of specific discipline, as science is inherently non-political and must remain so in order to be truly objective. True, our government has historically had its "fingers" in some sort of science for much of the post-WWII era--remember how the Russian Sputnik artificial satellite in 1957 spurred America to win the Space Race, as one early example? But why is there such a driven reason to be meddling in vast areas of science research nowadays? Why are our current leaders so hellbent on tearing down long-standing institutions, rather than trying to fix legitimate problems that have been identified? Science, by its very nature, is a long-term, evolutionary pursuit; it cannot--or should not--be thought of as a plaything to turn on or off whenever politically convenient. Yes, there will always be overspending, corruption, and "gaming the system" in agencies and institutions, public and private, where science is being performed, but somehow, the work does get done and we always have found some way to pay for it; on-balance, progress is made and (usually) more good results over time from it than bad for society.

That said, I am less passionate about the "cozy" relationship of government and "big public education," which I think can be more effectively handled at the state and, preferably, local levels of government. So a lot of agreement there...

The purpose of my 2am post, Mike, was to try to offer an insight as to why "less" meaningful research seemingly comes out of NSSL nowadays versus earlier decades. Part of the answer is evolutionary, simply meaning that more things that were not understood fifty- or twenty-five years ago are considered routine explanation and textbook knowledge today. Science does not always progress at an even or linear pace. There are periodic "bursts" of knowledge, such as in NSSL's TIP years, as has been already noted. Also, the more science advances, the harder it is to reach the next "level" of understanding or sought objective because the "easier" answers are usually the first to be found. And, sufficient levels of funding and steady, competent management are always a practical requirement at any time, or progress may ebb. All these reasons--and others--might offer an explanation to your question.

 

[JamesCaruso]

As an administrator, I’ll share the usual caution that we don’t turn this into a political battle. Stopping short of making this an official “staff note,” as I don’t see anything too egregious and the debate has been good. My rule of thumb is that we should avoid blanket judgments, which is where problems start, and candidly it’s comments like “The current view from the executive branch in Washington is anti-science, anti-education, and particularly anti-climate. We are witnessing the vilification of weather and climate research solely for political purposes” that I had in mind as potentially inflammatory. But I’m not deleting any posts, and everything since then has been good.

Now, as a “regular” ST member, I tend to agree that science is never settled. Mike used the example of carbs. Before that it was the food pyramid. Some years bacon, eggs and coffee were bad, then they were good again. Now even one alcoholic beverage is bad, but it used to be the French paradox, OK to have two drinks per day, etc. (That’s one area where I most certainly reject the current “science” LOL). Some of the things that used to be done in the medical field were downright barbaric. There are tons of examples. By definition, we can’t possibly know what we are currently wrong about. We don’t know what we don’t know, as Boris said.

Science damaged its own reputation during Covid, and with global warming. It’s not a question of being right or wrong. It’s the lack of intellectual humility that claimed everything was settled with 100% certainty, and sought to marginalize anybody that suggested different possibilities or dared question what they were being told.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Jim, I have no issue with anything you've said above, if even in partial disagreement. The original poster's topic is, again, one of the "touchy" areas that is at the crossroad of weather (NSSL) and current politics. It is difficult to have a fair, non-biased, open discussion that will not offend some reader, even if all statements made can be proven (by example) to be factual from multiple trusted, mainstream media (not social media) sources. Other than the original post, we have all gone out-of-our way not to mention any specific names of individuals or agencies (other than NSSL, of course) in our discourse above, so that, as Admins, you'll see that our discussion has been about the science, particularly weather science, aspect, not politics.