Congress cutting NWS budget?

[Clinch Leatherwood]

The problem is the government is the worst credit addict of them all. We spend far more than we "make" and it has to end at some point. Sadly it's only the tip of the iceberg, eventually either the country goes broke or we break all the pension deals and other arrangements/unfunded liabilities that we have all over.

[aslkahuna]

Before 1995, PHX used to forecast for ALL of Arizona and they thoroughly sucked at it especially in Southern AZ they didn't even know how to properly define a monsoon (and still don't). If AZ were to cut WFO's PHX should go and TUS/FLG stay-will never happen though and we'll end up with NWS in AZ worse than TWC.

Steve

[weatherMA]

This is just the thread I wanted to come across when I'm visiting colleges next week to potentially major in meteorology.

Thanks.

[eyewall]

This is just the thread I wanted to come across when I'm visiting colleges next week to potentially major in meteorology.

Thanks.

Choose engineering.

[AtticaFanatica]

This is just the thread I wanted to come across when I'm visiting colleges next week to potentially major in meteorology.

Thanks.

Choose what you want.

[baroclinic_instability]

These proposed budget cuts to discretionary spending by the house are pretty ridiculous. Simply cutting everything without considering the potential economic benefit of said programs is reckless. Hopefully the Republicans/Democrats/Tea Party Repubs can reach some meaningful agreements and put aside the silly political games for the good of the country--but the house republicans are definitely trying to make a statement to their constituency since they ran on promises of reduced federal spending. It seems they are cutting all the wrong things though--and for very little initial gain. What is it worth to massively cut all these programs if the potential economic benefit is negative in the long run? These overall tiny changes the republicans are calling for will have little if any major benefits towards cutting the federal deficit--but potentially huge impacts for millions of Americans. Of course these budget plans are amazingly complex--but it would be nice to see some defense budget cuts so meaningful gains can be made towards reducing the deficit. The proposed house cuts to everything is beyond reckless.

[eyewall]

Thank you Speaker Douchebag. I guess he would say "so be it".

[Mitchel Volk]

At this rate the forecasts will be produced by Watson. This is a very tough time for Civil Service employees, just look what they are trying to do in Wisconsin. The NWS always seems to be a target, look what Ronald Reagan did to then in 1981-82.

[weatherMA]

Choose engineering.

I know that career would be good to find a job in but it just doesn't interest me.

Choose what you want.

I know. Thanks.

[eyewall]

I know that career would be good to find a job in but it just doesn't interest me.

I know. Thanks.

Trust me I know how you feel I was just being a bit sarcastic because of the state of things.

[weathafella]

The problem is the entitlement programs most notably social security are such sacred cows that spending cuts are felt much more severely in other programs. We'll never be serious without means testing SS and allowing people like me not to be eligible.

[wxdudemike]

These proposed budget cuts to discretionary spending by the house are pretty ridiculous. Simply cutting everything without considering the potential economic benefit of said programs is reckless. Hopefully the Republicans/Democrats/Tea Party Repubs can reach some meaningful agreements and put aside the silly political games for the good of the country--but the house republicans are definitely trying to make a statement to their constituency since they ran on promises of reduced federal spending. It seems they are cutting all the wrong things though--and for very little initial gain. What is it worth to massively cut all these programs if the potential economic benefit is negative in the long run? These overall tiny changes the republicans are calling for will have little if any major benefits towards cutting the federal deficit--but potentially huge impacts for millions of Americans. Of course these budget plans are amazingly complex--but it would be nice to see some defense budget cuts so meaningful gains can be made towards reducing the deficit. The proposed house cuts to everything is beyond reckless.

I have to wonder if maybe they introduced an over zealous 1st draft so that after compromise they get the levels they actually are going for. Guess that is more political talk than weather, so don't want to stir too much up. But we all know the numbers in this bill will likely not happen.

[BillB]

<on soapbox>

This is one MAJOR concern, as all these areas in our office have some sort of outreach. We've done presentations for marine and aviation organizations, tours of our office to a wide variety of organizations, co-op station visits (which should be done twice yearly throughout the county warning area)...you name it, we've done it! Oh, can't forget StormReady recertifications, which are done every three years. How do we do all that, plus forecasting, with fewer people and resources? Don't ask me!

We have had very little outreach scheduled since September because of short staffing. We lost two forecasters to transfer, and were FINALLY filled in January. One position was open since last June! Now, we are supposed to be hosting one of the stops for the Hurricane Awareness Tour in May. Will this happen? Who knows.

<off soapbox>

--Turtle

Except, forecasts go out seven days and what if there are two significant weather events on days 3 and 7, what if there was a major meteorological event the day before, its not that cut and dry. Just because the weather is quiet today, doesn't mean you are necessarily not doing much. There are also focal point duties and there is always ongoing training which are done on quieter days. Offices are not staffed for adverse weather. Its obvious that the fiscal house has to get in order. There are sacred cows that are not being touched , but this is the equivalent of solving the problem you are having with your wrist by having the Congressional doctors chop off your arm.

Before 1995, PHX used to forecast for ALL of Arizona and they thoroughly sucked at it especially in Southern AZ they didn't even know how to properly define a monsoon (and still don't). If AZ were to cut WFO's PHX should go and TUS/FLG stay-will never happen though and we'll end up with NWS in AZ worse than TWC.

Steve

I think most of us, both on the front lines and on the outside, know of several offices of the 122 that need either a massive whack upside the back of the head or a closure. Even so, I don't relish any such downsizing. If it were just the forecasting, I would take on that challenge. But it is also the program work that goes on, largely behind the scenes, with various federal-state-local authorities/agencies. That would double. It is also the additional daily contact with the media and general public.

As Rainshadow noted, offices are not staffed for adverse weather. The term for this, which is frowned upon by the powers-that-be, is "fair-weather staffing". This philosophy assumes that NWS forecasters are always available; they don't get sick, or have family members who get seriously ill, or go out of town on a day off, or go on vacation...and we don't get blitzed by frequent significant winter storms or have back-to-back-to-back severe weather outbreaks or have back-to-back major flood events, etc. Even in Southern New England each year several individual severe tstm days will require multiple radar desks working separately to cover widespread convection; similar radar staffing is required at times in other parts of the country as well. Take these concerns for any given office and multiply as adjacent offices are merged. Stir thoroughly.

"New technology" is often cited as the solution. This has been a drumbeat since I first signed on with the agency many years ago. It was at its best as a "selling job" in the BAMS article long ago that depicted a "typical shift" in a future Modernization WFO. The article described the forecaster at this WFO noting a small change in the expected upper-level mass fields and then effortlessly effecting a change in the corresponding gridded forecast database fields. This change then automatically made changes in all the other fields that were affected. Reality has turned out to be more work than in the vision and it is much more time consuming. Technology is not a panacea. It will not always solve all of our problems. Rather, it is an efficient and effective application and use of that new technology that helps. The late Arthur C. Clarke wrote a fine short story called "Superiority" which I recommend to everyone's attention before they cite new technology as the solution.

[baroclinic_instability]

I think most of us, both on the front lines and on the outside, know of several offices of the 122 that need either a massive whack upside the back of the head or a closure. Even so, I don't relish any such downsizing. If it were just the forecasting, I would take on that challenge. But it is also the program work that goes on, largely behind the scenes, with various federal-state-local authorities/agencies. That would double. It is also the additional daily contact with the media and general public.

As Rainshadow noted, offices are not staffed for adverse weather. The term for this, which is frowned upon by the powers-that-be, is "fair-weather staffing". This philosophy assumes that NWS forecasters are always available; they don't get sick, or have family members who get seriously ill, or go out of town on a day off, or go on vacation...and we don't get blitzed by frequent significant winter storms or have back-to-back-to-back severe weather outbreaks or have back-to-back major flood events, etc. Even in Southern New England each year several individual severe tstm days will require multiple radar desks working separately to cover widespread convection; similar radar staffing is required at times in other parts of the country as well. Take these concerns for any given office and multiply as adjacent offices are merged. Stir thoroughly.

"New technology" is often cited as the solution. This has been a drumbeat since I first signed on with the agency many years ago. It was at its best as a "selling job" in the BAMS article long ago that depicted a "typical shift" in a future Modernization WFO. The article described the forecaster at this WFO noting a small change in the expected upper-level mass fields and then effortlessly effecting a change in the corresponding gridded forecast database fields. This change then automatically made changes in all the other fields that were affected. Reality has turned out to be more work than in the vision and it is much more time consuming. Technology is not a panacea. It will not always solve all of our problems. Rather, it is an efficient and effective application and use of that new technology that helps. The late Arthur C. Clarke wrote a fine short story called "Superiority" which I recommend to everyone's attention before they cite new technology as the solution.

Beautifully said. I can say after working in private sector meteorology/forecasting where technology was given quite a bit of funding--while impressive--it is not close to becoming the de facto standard in meteorology. In terms of the NWS/private weather--technology has enabled forecasters/meteorologists to spend more time on "impact" based forecasting/decision support services for more near term weather events. This is the part that truly saves not only lives--but it enhances the national economy. Hopefully the folks making the decisions in government will give this consideration as a big cut in spending now will have major negative impacts down the road not only for the NWS but for private weather companies who rely on NCEP/NOAA services. This will eventually have huge impacts both on the economy and the well being of US citizens. Cutting costs to claim "we are cutting down on government spending" when those cuts actually negatively hurt the overall economy are just beyond silly. Political games at their worst--reckless is the only word that comes to mind.

[Riptide]

The problem is the entitlement programs most notably social security are such sacred cows that spending cuts are felt much more severely in other programs. We'll never be serious without means testing SS and allowing people like me not to be eligible.

People in your age group should definitely be paid well by Social Security. I hope they ditch SS eventually, it won't be as bad as it seems because that means more money in my salary. I would also rather care for my savings rather than being spoon-fed by the government.

[ORH_wxman]

Beautifully said. I can say after working in private sector meteorology/forecasting where technology was given quite a bit of funding--while impressive--it is not close to becoming the de facto standard in meteorology. In terms of the NWS/private weather--technology has enabled forecasters/meteorologists to spend more time on "impact" based forecasting/decision support services for more near term weather events. This is the part that truly saves not only lives--but it enhances the national economy. Hopefully the folks making the decisions in government will give this consideration as a big cut in spending now will have major negative impacts down the road not only for the NWS but for private weather companies who rely on NCEP/NOAA services. This will eventually have huge impacts both on the economy and the well being of US citizens. Cutting costs to claim "we are cutting down on government spending" when those cuts actually negatively hurt the overall economy are just beyond silly. Political games at their worst--reckless is the only word that comes to mind.

The biggest problem I see in any "large operation" (which I often can have an afar view from since I work independently) is that there is a serious disregard for "nowcasting"....everything needs to be a 1-2 day forecast or a 3-4 day forecast and then we are "set". Its impossible to do that. Just look at many of the winter storms this year where there have been absolutely monstrous changes in the outlook inside of a 12 hour period...up here, the Jan 26-27 storm being the most glaring.

There needs to be manned staff for this type of stuff. You cannot expect a small staff at the NWS to look at every single developing cold cloud top as the forecast is busting in the winter storm while simultaneously expecting them to complete a bunch of other tasks such as TAFs, marine, long range, etc. Its impossible...its either you do one at the expense of the other or you do both at a less than optimal performance rate.

Everyone is int he business of saving money...so its natural to cut staff...but if that comes at a cost of losing millions of dollars of business from the outside because one or two storms per year deke you out, then its not worth it.

[wxdudemike]

One place to cut might be the extremely nice benefits NWS employees get. I know that no one wants to be the bad guy who officially brings it up, but the private sector doesn't have it because they can't afford it. Our government can't afford it either so why do they have it? Plus I heard a rumor that we pay NWS employees overtime pay for ANY federally observed holiday. That seems a bit ridiculous as well....They are the things that should be considered before major cuts to staff or balloon launches etc...

Would dual pol be on the chopping block or has it already been paid for?

[baroclinic_instability]

The biggest problem I see in any "large operation" (which I often can have an afar view from since I work independently) is that there is a serious disregard for "nowcasting"....everything needs to be a 1-2 day forecast or a 3-4 day forecast and then we are "set". Its impossible to do that. Just look at many of the winter storms this year where there have been absolutely monstrous changes in the outlook inside of a 12 hour period...up here, the Jan 26-27 storm being the most glaring.

There needs to be manned staff for this type of stuff. You cannot expect a small staff at the NWS to look at every single developing cold cloud top as the forecast is busting in the winter storm while simultaneously expecting them to complete a bunch of other tasks such as TAFs, marine, long range, etc. Its impossible...its either you do one at the expense of the other or you do both at a less than optimal performance rate.

Everyone is int he business of saving money...so its natural to cut staff...but if that comes at a cost of losing millions of dollars of business from the outside because one or two storms per year deke you out, then its not worth it.

NOWcasting is definitely hurting these days--as is proper analysis of the meteorological processes to determine when said models are busting bad. Hence my post on "Why are Models So Good?" where I briefly discuss the incorrect use of guidance and the general lack of meteorological analysis as "model-casting" has become the prominent mode in a lot of forecasting these days. That said--NOWcasting is definitely big in a lot of private weather where most decisions made by maintenance managers/emergency management are made in the 24-48 hour period. This is exactly where the NWS is heading with a push towards decision support services--which was outlined in the 2020 strat guide and is being tested at some offices already--including Paducah.

[baroclinic_instability]

One place to cut might be the extremely nice benefits NWS employees get. I know that no one wants to be the bad guy who officially brings it up, but the private sector doesn't have it because they can't afford it. Our government can't afford it either so why do they have it? Plus I heard a rumor that we pay NWS employees overtime pay for ANY federally observed holiday. That seems a bit ridiculous as well....They are the things that should be considered before major cuts to staff or balloon launches etc...

Would dual pol be on the chopping block or has it already been paid for?

Having happy employees is very important. Considering meteorologists have to work shift work, move far from family/home, staff for big events which results in OT/schedule changes, etc--the benefits are worthy in my opinion. They get these for a reason--and NWS employees in general are happy for a reason. Not saying private sector mets aren't--but I can tell you from experience it isn't necessarily something everyone wants to do for a career although its fits some very well. Once again--pay/benefits is justified as happy employees generally results in better overall results which then translates to greater economic benefit.

[ORH_wxman]

Having happy employees is very important. Considering meteorologists have to work shift work, move far from family/home, staff for big events which results in OT/schedule changes, etc--the benefits are worthy in my opinion. They get these for a reason--and NWS employees in general are happy for a reason. Not saying private sector mets aren't--but I can tell you from experience it isn't necessarily something everyone wants to do for a career. Once again--pay/benefits is justified as happy employees generally results in better overall results which then translates to greater economic benefit. This is nothing new and is seen in all facets of life.

Yes...big point here. A lot of "would be great mets" could easily go find a better living in another field (or another met job) leaving the NWS without the cream of the crop and even lower down in the scrap heaps if you don't offer some good reason to work for them.

It's like any other business...if you are sh**ty to your employees, they won't work for you and you will be left with a crappy staff.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Having happy employees is very important. Considering meteorologists have to work shift work, move far from family/home, staff for big events which results in OT/schedule changes, etc--the benefits are worthy in my opinion. They get these for a reason--and NWS employees in general are happy for a reason. Not saying private sector mets aren't--but I can tell you from experience it isn't necessarily something everyone wants to do for a career although its fits some very well. Once again--pay/benefits is justified as happy employees generally results in better overall results which then translates to greater economic benefit.

When I finished school in the early 1990's all of my friends broke into two categories. There were those that took private sector jobs for more money vs those that took public sector jobs for less pay but great benefits/early retirement. If I were to think back, I think most of us in the private end of it started at 40 or so, the public employees were 28-32. The hook was unbeatable benefits and earlier retirements.

Somewhere that changed. Now a lot of those guys are making 100-150k a year as public employees AND still many can retire in their 50's, don't pay much/anything for benefits and have pensions. The average private sector person has a crappy 401k that just took a beating, pays a fortune in health care etc. It just cannot continue, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to make employees happy.

There's a reason why private sector companies cannot match or even get close to government benefits and that's because they're unsustainable.

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really.

[baroclinic_instability]

When I finished school in the early 1990's all of my friends broke into two categories. There were those that took private sector jobs for more money vs those that took public sector jobs for less pay but great benefits/early retirement. If I were to think back, I think most of us in the private end of it started at 40 or so, the public employees were 28-32. The hook was unbeatable benefits and earlier retirements.

Somewhere that changed. Now a lot of those guys are making 100-150k a year as public employees AND still many can retire in their 50's, don't pay much/anything for benefits and have pensions. The average private sector person has a crappy 401k that just took a beating, pays a fortune in health care etc. It just cannot continue, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to make employees happy.

There's a reason why private sector companies cannot match or even get close to government benefits and that's because they're unsustainable.

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really.

Hopefully our folks in government learn to make important cuts including the bloated defense spending and other large "sinks". While some NOAA employees may make 150k--most are not close to that. There will be lean times in any market--but that is not the discussion here. Cutting 20-30% of the FY 2012 budget from FY2011 would be just ridiculous and would have sweeping undesirable effects on the economy as well as emergency services, etc. Some folks just aren't getting the memo here--the NWS and NOAA have been shown to have significant economic benefits to the economy. Why cut spending when it has been shown to improve the economy?

[ORH_wxman]

When I finished school in the early 1990's all of my friends broke into two categories. There were those that took private sector jobs for more money vs those that took public sector jobs for less pay but great benefits/early retirement. If I were to think back, I think most of us in the private end of it started at 40 or so, the public employees were 28-32. The hook was unbeatable benefits and earlier retirements.

Somewhere that changed. Now a lot of those guys are making 100-150k a year as public employees AND still many can retire in their 50's, don't pay much/anything for benefits and have pensions. The average private sector person has a crappy 401k that just took a beating, pays a fortune in health care etc. It just cannot continue, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to make employees happy.

There's a reason why private sector companies cannot match or even get close to government benefits and that's because they're unsustainable.

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really.

Your wage claims are not valid for this thread...most NWS people do not make close to 100k per year. There are some that do because they've been around a long time, but a VAST majority do not. Most make under 60k actually.

If they cut benefits, who the hell is gonna want to work for the NWS? Then you just end up with a terrible staff.

[HarveyLeonardFan]

The problem is the entitlement programs most notably social security are such sacred cows that spending cuts are felt much more severely in other programs. We'll never be serious without means testing SS and allowing people like me not to be eligible.

What about the wealthy retirees who lost everything in the Madoff/Enron scandals. 10 years ago they didn't need social security before the series of financial collapses over the past decade...but without social security these people wouldn't be feeding themselves because they've all lost all other means of income.

[weathafella]

When I finished school in the early 1990's all of my friends broke into two categories. There were those that took private sector jobs for more money vs those that took public sector jobs for less pay but great benefits/early retirement. If I were to think back, I think most of us in the private end of it started at 40 or so, the public employees were 28-32. The hook was unbeatable benefits and earlier retirements.

Somewhere that changed. Now a lot of those guys are making 100-150k a year as public employees AND still many can retire in their 50's, don't pay much/anything for benefits and have pensions. The average private sector person has a crappy 401k that just took a beating, pays a fortune in health care etc. It just cannot continue, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to make employees happy.

There's a reason why private sector companies cannot match or even get close to government benefits and that's because they're unsustainable.

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really.

You're lumping all public employees with feds. Feds pay a plenty for their health coverage, DO have a nominal pension and pay into ssn, and have a 401k based on their own personal contributions. That's the category of NWS employees. When I came into federal service 26 years ago, they had just changed the pension system. I had worked for them over 5 years earlier and had I stayed vs going private, I'd be retired today and working somewhere else as a fat cat. This is not your grandfather's fed. I over $5,000/year for my health benefits (as do NWS employees taking the family option). The benefits are ok but far from great as they used to be.

I couldn't retire in my 50s without substantial penalty to my pension. I now am at retirement age and the pension would not be near enough to support my current needs.

[ApacheTrout]

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really. my bold

Messenger - polls come out time and time again showing that the public broadly supports reverting taxes on capital gains and incomes over $250k to previous levels, yet our politicians act as if we have no choice. Indeed, we have a choice, and we're choosing poorly, pursuing an economic tax policy (trickle down) that is proven to have no benefit. Effectively, the sources of government revenue (and societal benefit) have been taken off the table. We also choose to fight expensive wars. Choose to ignore financial regulation. The list is seemingly endless.

So here were are again, seemingly faced with the only choice of cutting NWS services. It's a false option, fed by intentional misconceptions about government salaries and benefits.

[mulen]

Amazing there is even a debate about private vs public employees the game is over the american people are insolvent and the marketplace will eventually take care of the distorted salaries and benefits and theres nothing anyone can do about . The predicament were in is ugly and the denial we all have about the workplace and the kicking the can down the road is over get your seatbelts on because this rollercoaster were on is in a hugh decline see ya.

[am19psu]

Let's try to keep this thread on the topic of budget cuts to the NWS and avoid talking about the budget as a whole. If you want to talk about the budget as a whole, there is a thread already started in PR.

[ApacheTrout]

Let's try to keep this thread on the topic of budget cuts to the NWS and avoid talking about the budget as a whole. If you want to talk about the budget as a whole, there is a thread already started in PR.

I understand what you're saying, but the proposed NWS cuts are not independent of the government-wide budget cutting philosophy. The reasons postulated for cutting NWS are applied elsewhere and it serves to have the merits of the arguments weighed.

[Rainshadow]

When I finished school in the early 1990's all of my friends broke into two categories. There were those that took private sector jobs for more money vs those that took public sector jobs for less pay but great benefits/early retirement. If I were to think back, I think most of us in the private end of it started at 40 or so, the public employees were 28-32. The hook was unbeatable benefits and earlier retirements.

Somewhere that changed. Now a lot of those guys are making 100-150k a year as public employees AND still many can retire in their 50's, don't pay much/anything for benefits and have pensions. The average private sector person has a crappy 401k that just took a beating, pays a fortune in health care etc. It just cannot continue, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to make employees happy.

There's a reason why private sector companies cannot match or even get close to government benefits and that's because they're unsustainable.

It's not limited to NOAA. Local and State governments are having to make these same choices. Some towns are wiping out police and firefighters, others teachers, some both. There's no choice really.

With apologies Adam I can't separate the two, the cost of the war in Afghanistan to date would have provided enough funding to operate the National Weather Service for approximately the next 300 years. If I really wanted to save money I could think of better places to get more bang for my buck if I was interested in doing something more than political posturing on the discretionary side of the budget.