Legislation to Create a National Disaster Review Board

[Jamie H]

Jaime, thank you for your post. You make a number of good points.

Now, a favor: what do you think of my NWS/NOAA proposal ( To President-Elect Trump: Recommendations for NOAA and the National Weather Service )? And, for those who agree with my suggestions, can you forward them to state or federal officials you may know?

Thanks Mike. It's just, having seen political creep into non-political institutions over here, and being quite a fan of the amount of free weather data in the US, I really would hate to see those departments being forced into decision making based upon populist political movements.

Regarding your post, here are some thoughts:

- it didn't seem to make sense that NOAA was the one behind the report into radar gaps, because it either says "we need more" which is an admission that current data isn't enough, or says "we're okay" which doesn't seem true.
- disagree with your assertion that there's global warming propoganda
- found the Roger Pielke Jr. paper interesting (I'll admit I have had to start skim reading because I am at work!) but from what I can gather, the main complaint is there's no evidence of the data used? Which makes sense in isolation.

My concern then comes from drawing a line between this lack of transparancy and 'climate alarm' because we know climate *is* changing, rapidly, and because of how we use resources. That could well mean you are technically correct in calling it propoganda, but I would be less comfortable with linking that to the whole thing being a lie (not that I am saying you claimed this at all! More that commentors on Pielke's paper seemed to think it confirmed it's all a hoax).

It makes perfect sense that there should be no political influcence on any of this, whether that is overstating the cost of natural disasters, or whether it is still trying to muddy the waters of our affect on climate change. But perhaps these days that's a pipe dream!

 

[James K]

I gave that NWS/NOAA proposal a quick read through...

I don't know about breaking the NWS off NOAA or not, Maybe a good idea maybe not.

But yeah I agree the NWS could use some 'help', like as mentioned the radar gaps & maybe updating/improving models, re starting soundings at those locations (Denver as one example) that no longer do them (having more actual data at more locations then helps both forecasters and the computer models)

And NWS/NOAA/WB (whatever you want to call it) certainly should not be giving multi-million grants to unaccountable "nonprofits" (or for-profits for that matter)
I see nothing wrong with NWS formatting data for specific users ... IF and ONLY IF those users are PAYING for that special formatting (and enough to fully cover all costs + some extra income for the NWS).

While all data in standard formats should absolutely remain free to the general public.

 

[James K]

- disagree with your assertion that there's global warming propoganda

Don't forget that the incoming leader & his inner-circle/elites do not believe in global warming.

Honestly, if anything any phrases like 'global warming' or 'climate change' should simply be left out of any proposals or legislation at this point...

 

[Mike Smith]

I see nothing wrong with NWS formatting data for specific users ... IF and ONLY IF those users are PAYING for that special formatting (and enough to fully cover all costs + some extra income for the NWS).

Here's the problem: the NWS will inevitably end up favoring the paying clients over the general public.

We already know that to be true when the NWS HQ used to looked the other way when the field offices would take care of what I would call prestige clients even though they were not paying clients.

Here is one example: in 2007, the NWS was providing site-specific storm forecasts and warnings to the St. Louis Cardinals. A short line of thunderstorms that had been moving from west to east suddenly made a pivot to the south just north of the city/county. The NWS was caught short-handed and was spending so much time with the Cards that the public warning was way too late. Winds of 85 mph were clocked in downtown STL. The Cards were warned, yes

but the public was not. The NWS received major criticism from the mayor to TV meteorologists.

This happened on April 26, 2011, as well, with regard to the Tuscaloosa Tornado and on other occasions.

If the NWS does this with non-paying clients, think of what they will do when they have clients that pay. We are far better off if the NWS treats everyone the same by regulation and let private sector meteorologists handle the private sector special users.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Don't forget that the incoming leader & his inner-circle/elites do not believe in global warming.

Don’t “believe” in it? Or believe it’s happening, but not that it’s an existential threat, or that it should be our top national security priority, or that there’s much we can do about it, at least not without sufficient certainty to justify spending trillions of dollars, picking winners and losers in private industry, and hurting our own economic competitiveness while countries like China expand their carbon footprint with impunity?

All of which can be debated by reasonable people. None of which means “the incoming leader & his inner-circle/elites do not believe in global warming.”

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Regardless of who's in power, all government agencies should be reviewed regularly to maximize efficiencies and cut out any bloat or redundancies, which is ultimately absorbed by the taxpayer.

There are definitely deficiencies that need to be addressed within NOAA/NWS (fill those radar holes!). But, to let them be a stand alone entity without review or without accountability would be a major mistake.

 

[Mike Smith]

There are definitely deficiencies that need to be addressed within NOAA/NWS (fill those radar holes!). But, to let them be a stand alone entity without review or without accountability would be a major mistake.

The accountability will come from the National Disaster Review Board just the NTSB provides accountability w/r/t FAA's safety culture.

Your concern is well-founded. NASA is a standalone agency that grew ossified. It took Elon Musk to show what could be done. Interestingly, according to an article I read earlier this week, NASA says it welcomes Musk's DOGE as it says it needs to rid itself to DEI and center on a new mission. I believe that mission should be government and research satellites only. Let private sector satellites be launched by Space-X, Blue Origin, etc.

As I said in my piece (above), the Weather Bureau (new NWS) and the NDRB are complementary.

 

[Boris Konon]

Don’t “believe” in it? Or believe it’s happening, but not that it’s an existential threat, or that it should be our top national security priority, or that there’s much we can do about it, at least not without sufficient certainty to justify spending trillions of dollars, picking winners and losers in private industry, and hurting our own economic competitiveness while countries like China expand their carbon footprint with impunity?

All of which can be debated by reasonable people. None of which means “the incoming leader & his inner-circle/elites do not believe in global warming.”

I will add, why it is always "believe" in this or that? Belief is irrelevant in science. Science is true whether you believe in it or not, that's why it works!

The accusation that people don't believe in global warming is glossed-over, summary statement.
It is always either/or argument, nothing in between or the details are ignored. We are not even asking the right questions here. If you can't ask the right questions, how can possibly answer/address them properly?

The question should be, "is anthropogenic (note how this adjective is often left out - precision is important in this case) global warming really an existential threat?" Also, "the very fact AGW exists, is that cause for extreme urgency and alarmism, spending trillions that could be spend elsewhere in a much more productive fashion?" This is rarely quantified, just the lazy "AGW exists = end of the world = enormous resources dedicated to it." That is a vapid and simplistic mindset, which has been sold to us by the powers that be for some time.

 

[John Farley]

Don’t “believe” in it? Or believe it’s happening, but not that it’s an existential threat, or that it should be our top national security priority, or that there’s much we can do about it, at least not without sufficient certainty to justify spending trillions of dollars, picking winners and losers in private industry, and hurting our own economic competitiveness while countries like China expand their carbon footprint with impunity?

All of which can be debated by reasonable people. None of which means “the incoming leader & his inner-circle/elites do not believe in global warming.”

Except that if you follow the link below, you will find five different instances in which the incoming "leader" called global warming a "hoax", "bullshit", or something similar.

Did Donald Trump Claim Global Warming Is a Hoax?

Donald Trump and his campaign refuse to acknowledge instances of his referring to global warming as a "hoax." What does the public record show?

www.snopes.com

 

[John Farley]

The question should be, "is anthropogenic (note how this adjective is often left out - precision is important in this case) global warming really an existential threat?" Also, "the very fact AGW exists, is that cause for extreme urgency and alarmism, spending trillions that could be spend elsewhere in a much more productive fashion?" This is rarely quantified, just the lazy "AGW exists = end of the world = enormous resources dedicated to it." That is a vapid and simplistic mindset, which has been sold to us by the powers that be for some time.

Deniers of climate change, and/or of human influence thereupon, love to talk about the costs of trying to address it, but they never mention the costs of NOT addressing it. More extreme wildfires, heavy rain events, heat, and tropical cyclone intensity (maybe not frequency, that is indeed a matter for further research) have imposed tremendous costs on humanity, both in the US and worldwide. If you want to talk about economics, you have to look at both sides of the equation. Looking at only one side of the economic equation could also be characterized as a vapid and simplistic mindset, and there are obviously great powers that be that are doing that, too.

 

[William Monfredo]

There's a lot of well-articulated conversation here. In the past, I've mentioned Judith Curry's important 2023 book. It addresses how to bring people from diverse opinions to the table for decision-making to produce pragmatic, human & environmental solutions in an uncertain world.

 

[Mike Smith]

Everyone, please keep in mind that the proposed NDRB will be forbidden -- by law -- to deal with climate change. We already have the U.S. Climate Assessment team to do that and the last thing we need in the federal government is more duplication.

We need to handle disasters better regardless of whether the climate is changing due to human influence.

 

[William Monfredo]

We need to handle disasters better regardless...

That's so true; I was going to mention that a few replies back. Disasters are a complex interplay of weather & environment, prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response & recovery, for both organizations and individuals. NDRB should have no blurry, bleed-over from climate modeling.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Deniers of climate change, and/or of human influence thereupon, love to talk about the costs of trying to address it, but they never mention the costs of NOT addressing it. More extreme wildfires, heavy rain events, heat, and tropical cyclone intensity (maybe not frequency, that is indeed a matter for further research) have imposed tremendous costs on humanity, both in the US and worldwide. If you want to talk about economics, you have to look at both sides of the equation. Looking at only one side of the economic equation could also be characterized as a vapid and simplistic mindset, and there are obviously great powers that be that are doing that, too.

I'm not a denier but I do believe in individual responsibility when it comes to addressing issues, and frankly I don't see a lot of individual accountability from those who are most vocal. People keep pushing the boundaries of living in places where natural disasters are more likely to make an impact, for example deeper into the mountains where wildfires would of course be more of an issue. Hurricanes and tornadoes will impact more areas where population has spread (which is pretty much everywhere these days). It's inevitable to only get worse because people want space.

People (regardless of political affiliation) are still driving cars, and whether they're EV or not, they still require parts and components and assembly, which require factories. People are still traveling by jet more than ever, and we're putting up wind turbines at amazing rates (if you haven't been to the plains lately, hard to get a photo without them) but we're not reducing the number of electric power plants, or dams or anything else. Solar is still trying to become a thing, but a solar farm takes up a lot of land that could have other uses as well. Again, we're introducing lots of alternatives, but at the end of the day they're way too costly and inefficient, and people fall back on what makes life affordable for them.

At the end of the day, regardless of how alarming it is, nobody is making the necessary changes (left side of the aisle, or right). In order to make substantiative changes, you basically have to be ok with going nowhere, eating only home grown foods and never buying anything. All 360 million plus people here in the US, and all seven billion plus people everywhere else. That's a big ask and it's not all up to government. Until the alternatives become affordable, efficient and economical without government subsidies, we're going to be in the same boat for a really long time.

 

[John Farley]

At the end of the day, regardless of how alarming it is, nobody is making the necessary changes (left side of the aisle, or right). In order to make substantiative changes, you basically have to be ok with going nowhere, eating only home grown foods and never buying anything. All 360 million plus people here in the US, and all seven billion plus people everywhere else. That's a big ask and it's not all up to government. Until the alternatives become affordable, efficient and economical, we're going to be in the same boat for a really long time.

Sean makes a good point, in that people are not likely to be willing to make changes that lower their standard of living. That said, it is not all or none. You CAN make changes that shift your energy consumption from carbons to renewables and do not lower your standard of living. And support policy changes that do the same. Our local electric coop here is making a major shift in that direction, as just one example. I am planning on electric for my next car, and have always tried to get the most fuel-efficient vehicle that meets my needs. We will be replacing our gas stove with electric in the next year or so. And I have not been on a jet since before the pandemic, though largely because flying has become such a pain it is easier to just drive unless going overseas. And if the clothing industry had to depend on me, it would be out of business with my collection of 10-20 year old tee shirts and jeans. Will any of that save the planet by itself? No, of course not. But steps in the right direction are better than nothing, and much better than further steps in the wrong direction.