Congress cutting NWS budget?

[mnweather]

Yesterday on my local news they had a story about how the Duluth office might close down and Minneapolis would take over for NE MN. It was an interesting story. They interviewed the local NWS employees about it and they said it was a possibility. Here is the link:

http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S1982162.shtml?cat=10335

[isohume]

Yesterday on my local news they had a story about how the Duluth office might close down and Minneapolis would take over for NE MN. It was an interesting story. They interviewed the local NWS employees about it and they said it was a possibility. Here is the link:

http://www.wdio.com/...shtml?cat=10335

[isohume]

If you ask me all of the new grids that are required to be created in GFE (we haven't even started aviation grids here yet) has tremendously increased the workload from where it was a few years ago.

I'd agree wholeheartedly. The grids are not so easy to keep fresh as advertised. We've been doing aviation grids for the past 3 years here and it is a significant added workload trying to get the cigs/vsby how you want them...and then trying to make sense of and fixing the TAF the formatter spits out. Enhanced short term is coming too...so the workload will just keep getting piled on.

[blizznd]

I'd agree wholeheartedly. The grids are not so easy to keep fresh as advertised. We've been doing aviation grids for the past 3 years here and it is a significant added workload trying to get the cigs/vsby how you want them...and then trying to make sense and fixing the TAF the formatter spits out. Enhanced short term is coming too...so the workload will just keep getting piled on.

I have heard about this enhanced short term from friends out in Eastern Region. What is that? I can only imagine trying to do a TAF from a GFE formatter....bad enough with ZFP.

[isohume]

I have heard about this enhanced short term from friends out in Eastern Region. What is that? I can only imagine trying to do a TAF from a GFE formatter....bad enough with ZFP.

Aviation grids suck...no other way to put it. Even after 3 years of learning how to use the best smart tools and applied guidance, they suck and give crappy TAFs. The enhanced short term is another gem from Charlie West (RLX ). It is basically one hour grids going out the first 24-26 hours. which will be updated every three hours or less. We already do this to some degree as we have one hour grids going out through new day 7. We just don't do the continuous updates yet. This process should be called enhanced near-term....like the near term desk isn't swamped already. lol

[blizznd]

Aviation grids suck...no other way to put it. Even after 3 years of learning how to use the best smart tools and applied guidance, they suck and give crappy TAFs. The enhanced short term is another gem from Charlie West (RLX ). It is basically one hour grids going out the first 24-26 hours. which will be updated every three hours or less. We already do this to some degree as we have one hour grids going out through new day 7. We just don't do the continuous updates yet. This process should be called enhanced near-term....like the near term desk isn't swamped already. lol

Thanks....just wondering. I am the aviation focal at NWS Grand Forks. It will be interesting what happens with NextGen as it comes along over the next few years.

--Dan

[wall_cloud]

ugh, I can imagine how awful the aviation and short term grids are. I have no earthly idea why they think those area good idea. Throw terrain into an already difficult forecast and you have a nightmare.

[famartin]

ugh, I can imagine how awful the aviation and short term grids are. I have no earthly idea why they think those area good idea. Throw terrain into an already difficult forecast and you have a nightmare.

You have no idea...

[BillB]

I have heard about this enhanced short term from friends out in Eastern Region. What is that? I can only imagine trying to do a TAF from a GFE formatter....bad enough with ZFP.

Aviation grids suck...no other way to put it. Even after 3 years of learning how to use the best smart tools and applied guidance, they suck and give crappy TAFs. The enhanced short term is another gem from Charlie West (RLX ). It is basically one hour grids going out the first 24-26 hours. which will be updated every three hours or less. We already do this to some degree as we have one hour grids going out through new day 7. We just don't do the continuous updates yet. This process should be called enhanced near-term....like the near term desk isn't swamped already. lol

Aviation grids have their problems, but they also have benefits. We've been running them at BOX for a little over a year, using a system that is a tad different from RLX. We started Enhanced Short Term (you're right, it should be "near" term) a few months before that. The main difference in adding aviation grids to enhanced short term coverage has been the addition of four fields of 30 1-hour grids: Predicted Height and Predicted Vsby, and two fields for Low Level Wind Shear. The data sources include MAV, MET, Gridded LAMP (usually the best), and a direct calculation from NAM, GFS, or a blend. The two Low Level Wind Shear fields are usually generated by a smart tool. Aside from those four, the other required grids are already being handled by EST.

Problems?

1. If the models suck, so will the available grids. You would then need to hand edit the grids, which can get tedious.

2. As we use hourly grids, the formatter doesn't allow for in-between start times such as for convection. You have to hand-edit that in the TAF yourself.

3. TAF formatters (which take the grid values and translate them into actual TAFs) are still immature. They are better than they were a year ago, but still have a way to go. Which leads to...

4. When there is changeable weather/wind/ceilings/vsbys the TAF formatter will crank out 14-15 line TAFs; the decision process is binary, picking out each change even if there is another one the next hour. If post-editing is needed, I expect 1-2 minutes per TAF.

Plusses?

1. Greater consistency among TAFs as weather moves in and out.

2. If the results don't need post-editing, then it's the same amount of effort for 5 TAFs or 15 TAFs.

3. TAF-like forecasts are available for every 5 Km grid (would like to see that smaller, but that is what we have for now). This is useful for Med-Evac operations as well as others that work between the TAF sites.

The Gridded Aviation process still has plenty of room to mature...I don't see it as the greatest thing since sliced bread as yet. But it shows promise. The FAA interest in additional TAFs is hitting some of us and will continue to grow in future years. So our workload will be increasing anyway. We might as well get out ahead of the growth.

[wall_cloud]

the models don't handle our low clouds worth a hill of beans. I can only imagine the amount of massaging that goes into those hourly grids. Yuck. I hope you guys hold onto that crap and don't send it south!

[stormguy80]

Just got back and am reading through these posts. We can argue on and on about the current fiscal situation and whether cutting the NWS makes sense but the long term outlook is not good for the NWS and mets in general. I see a future where there is maybe just a couple dozen WFOs coming within the next 10-20 years. I think its safe to say that anyone currently in school for meteorology or younger should accept the fact that they will most likely NOT be working for the NWS and will probably be making about 20-40 k in the private sector. If this is ok for someone great, then go for it. Most, however, have higher expectations that will very likely not be realized.

if you are smart, dedicated and can work well with groups of people, you should be okay in the long term.

the fear factor is not only in gov jobs, but public.(just read this thread) You may be the next director of XYZ NOAA office or agency or private met company.

I have over the years seen a few prospects that are bright when young, but turn out as dud in their early 20's.

The idea that you will get rich in most professions is far from true, but just enjoy what you do and happy times should follow.

cheers

[isohume]

Plusses?

1. Greater consistency among TAFs as weather moves in and out.

2. If the results don't need post-editing, then it's the same amount of effort for 5 TAFs or 15 TAFs.

1. This is normally when we see the worst output from the gridded TAFs. The TAFs generally need to be "chased" as a wedge builds/breaks, advecting nocturnal stratus isn't accounted for, fronts stall/slow, lee-side trofs back winds significantly, valley fg persists/burns, downslope clears low cigs, gap winds materialize, etc.

2. This is a big if around here. About the only time I see a formatted TAF that doesn't need much tending to is when hipres is directly overhead.

[isohume]

the models don't handle our low clouds worth a hill of beans. I can only imagine the amount of massaging that goes into those hourly grids. Yuck. I hope you guys hold onto that crap and don't send it south!

Also...when was the last time you saw consistent reliability out of MOS or LAMP for vsby? Many times I'll make pred height (cigs) and vsby grids by hand as much as I can.

[BillB]

One thing I forgot to add....

Enhanced Short Term grids require effort above and beyond the model output. An office that depends on the models to do it all without any forecaster adjustments before sending ("plug and chug", "fire and forget") is an office that will have verification problems with the EST grids...and by extension the aviation grids. It's no cakewalk with the forecaster adjustments...but life is a little easier. Example...MOS may show "chance" POPs on a 12-hour period and this will be a good forecast - for 12 hours. As we get within 6 hours and especially 3 hours...POP grids need to show areas of "likely/categorical" POPs following the paths of actual convection that has formed. Otherwise the formatters will give you Critical Period forecasts that aren't worth a you-know-what.

This required effort is just one reason why cutting forecaster positions at any WFO is not advisable even in the current fiscal environment.

[stormguy80]

ok. here's the question I posed back at the beginning of the thread. Can it be proved to a lay person that forecasters add enough value to be a worthy investment? Don't get me wrong, as a met I know how tough it is and I know that we do add value, especially during active weather. The problem is, the verification stats don't really do us (mets) justice. We improve by what, maybe a half degree or a degree on MOS guidance on average? This doesn't look impressive to a non met even though as mets we know that this is usually because we improve by a lot when the models are way off but on most days there may be no difference. These are the tough questions that will be asked and our side is going to have to come up with hard facts, not anecdotal stuff about how challenging the GFE is, etc...

One thing I forgot to add....

Enhanced Short Term grids require effort above and beyond the model output. An office that depends on the models to do it all without any forecaster adjustments before sending ("plug and chug", "fire and forget") is an office that will have verification problems with the EST grids...and by extension the aviation grids. It's no cakewalk with the forecaster adjustments...but life is a little easier. Example...MOS may show "chance" POPs on a 12-hour period and this will be a good forecast - for 12 hours. As we get within 6 hours and especially 3 hours...POP grids need to show areas of "likely/categorical" POPs following the paths of actual convection that has formed. Otherwise the formatters will give you Critical Period forecasts that aren't worth a you-know-what.

This required effort is just one reason why cutting forecaster positions at any WFO is not advisable even in the current fiscal environment.

[mnweather]

That is too boring of an answer.

[SpartyOn]

Here's to my more "mature" comment on this..

Out of all the BAD things to cut....I would rate this at the top of list. Protection of life, property and commerce depends on good weather forecasting.

Save the NWS!

[isohume]

That is too boring of an answer.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so blase. What I meant was...that NWSEO guy is not a NWS employee. He's a union guy that is going to trumpet the worst case scenario, such as NWS offices having to merge. There has been no talk of merging/closing offices officially and for him to claim it's a real possibility is just needless drama right now. The media loves reporting these type of statements tho.

[BillB]

ok. here's the question I posed back at the beginning of the thread. Can it be proved to a lay person that forecasters add enough value to be a worthy investment? Don't get me wrong, as a met I know how tough it is and I know that we do add value, especially during active weather. The problem is, the verification stats don't really do us (mets) justice. We improve by what, maybe a half degree or a degree on MOS guidance on average? This doesn't look impressive to a non met even though as mets we know that this is usually because we improve by a lot when the models are way off but on most days there may be no difference. These are the tough questions that will be asked and our side is going to have to come up with hard facts, not anecdotal stuff about how challenging the GFE is, etc...

Temperatures, one of two or three areas to which the average person can relate, is a tough sell. Aviation Weather, with which I'm more familiar, is a clear yes. In the Critical Period, on average, MET and MAV in our area were improved upon by something like 10-15% and GLAMP by 5-10%. (Sorry, the hard numbers are at the office.) The various MOS, especially GLAMP, can beat us on POD some months...but at the cost of being terribly high on false alarms. If the aviation community were to rely on MOS for its "TAFs", there would be a significant uptick (certainly in the Northeast Corridor) in the number and length of delays due to forecast weather...in many cases weather that subsequently never occured. I'm just guessing, but the effect on the economy would probably be in the 100's of millions of $$ if not higher; an economist would be needed for hard numbers. The delays experienced by air travelers would also increase. So there is value in our forecasting, and it doesn't require Stats on Demand to explain it.

[isohume]

Temperatures, one of two or three areas to which the average person can relate, is a tough sell. Aviation Weather, with which I'm more familiar, is a clear yes. In the Critical Period, on average, MET and MAV in our area were improved upon by something like 10-15% and GLAMP by 5-10%. (Sorry, the hard numbers are at the office.) The various MOS, especially GLAMP, can beat us on POD some months...but at the cost of being terribly high on false alarms. If the aviation community were to rely on MOS for its "TAFs", there would be a significant uptick (certainly in the Northeast Corridor) in the number and length of delays due to forecast weather...in many cases weather that subsequently never occured. I'm just guessing, but the effect on the economy would probably be in the 100's of millions of $ if not higher; an economist would be needed for hard numbers. The delays experienced by air travelers would also increase. So there is value in our forecasting, and it doesn't require Stats on Demand to explain it.

Good response and I agree. If MOS/LAMP were used to produce TAFs alone, the vsby/cig cats would miss more often than not. Experience in knowing what the MOS numbers mean for your particular area and the type of wx system expected is what helps beat MOS. The TAF is mainly a planning tool for airlines to consider how much fuel to carry and the need for secondary airports and such. If MOS has area terminals going into LIFR, when there is a decent chance things will remain MVFR or even IFR, it changes their fuel load and hence the cost of operations. Money wasted.

[mnweather]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so blase. What I meant was...that NWSEO guy is not a NWS employee. He's a union guy that is going to trumpet the worst case scenario, such as NWS offices having to merge. There has been no talk of merging/closing offices officially and for him to claim it's a real possibility is just needless drama right now. The media loves reporting these type of statements tho.

I am pleasantly happy with your answer. Thanks for clarifying like that. A lot of people don't do that online and they can be very rude. You know, where I worked I was in a union and the union boss seemed skeptical on layoffs. He was the opposite of this guy with worst case scenario and guess what I got the axe. So who knows how it works.

[stormguy80]

I agree with everything you are saying about aviation but unless you have numbers to back it up (prove it) it won't mean anything to the people making the decisions about what to cut. Simply saying "it would cost hundreds of millions...." without any proof doesn't hold any water with non mets who think of business in terms of hard facts. You even admitted you were just guessing.

Temperatures, one of two or three areas to which the average person can relate, is a tough sell. Aviation Weather, with which I'm more familiar, is a clear yes. In the Critical Period, on average, MET and MAV in our area were improved upon by something like 10-15% and GLAMP by 5-10%. (Sorry, the hard numbers are at the office.) The various MOS, especially GLAMP, can beat us on POD some months...but at the cost of being terribly high on false alarms. If the aviation community were to rely on MOS for its "TAFs", there would be a significant uptick (certainly in the Northeast Corridor) in the number and length of delays due to forecast weather...in many cases weather that subsequently never occured. I'm just guessing, but the effect on the economy would probably be in the 100's of millions of $$ if not higher; an economist would be needed for hard numbers. The delays experienced by air travelers would also increase. So there is value in our forecasting, and it doesn't require Stats on Demand to explain it.

[baroclinic_instability]

ok. here's the question I posed back at the beginning of the thread. Can it be proved to a lay person that forecasters add enough value to be a worthy investment? Don't get me wrong, as a met I know how tough it is and I know that we do add value, especially during active weather. The problem is, the verification stats don't really do us (mets) justice. We improve by what, maybe a half degree or a degree on MOS guidance on average? This doesn't look impressive to a non met even though as mets we know that this is usually because we improve by a lot when the models are way off but on most days there may be no difference. These are the tough questions that will be asked and our side is going to have to come up with hard facts, not anecdotal stuff about how challenging the GFE is, etc...

You are missing the point. First--short term forecasting is greatly enhanced by mets. Do you think we can rely on the NAM, GFS, or any other model to accurately consider short term forecast busts and or deviations? Skilled mets can still add a ton of influence here. I can say that after working in private industry and drawing hourly grids out to 48 hours. Models stink--especially in the 24-36 hr range compared to good mets. It is what the whole "decision support services" the NWS is trending towards is all about. Now that models and ensembles can to a decent degree handle variability in the long range--more time should be spent on improving short term services including warnings, advisories, communications, etc. Moreover--models spit out numbers. Someone needs to relay all that info to the emergency managers, public, tv news stations, newspapers, etc. Mets are not purely forecasters anymore--they perform a ton of duties outside of "forecasting"--and even then the forecasting part is more than enough to handle. Using the argument that mets only add small improvement over MOS doesn't tell the whole story. Computers are not taking over anytime soon--not in our lifetime.

[isohume]

I agree with everything you are saying about aviation but unless you have numbers to back it up (prove it) it won't mean anything to the people making the decisions about what to cut. Simply saying "it would cost hundreds of millions...." without any proof doesn't hold any water with non mets who think of business in terms of hard facts. You even admitted you were just guessing.

That's why we have GPRA goals and the aviation stats show the NWS consistently beating MOS. If you think of all the flights in the country everyday, 1000s of them, the added fuel savings alone from good TAFs saves millions for the airline industry.

[wall_cloud]

I agree with everything you are saying about aviation but unless you have numbers to back it up (prove it) it won't mean anything to the people making the decisions about what to cut. Simply saying "it would cost hundreds of millions...." without any proof doesn't hold any water with non mets who think of business in terms of hard facts. You even admitted you were just guessing.

Field forecasters aren't privy to many of these numbers but I can guarantee that there are folks up at HQ that have a good idea on how much money is saved by our improvement in TAF scores. Its like asking an intern what the office electric bill is. I'm sure they don't know but there is someone around that does.

[SDF_Wx]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so blase. What I meant was...that NWSEO guy is not a NWS employee. He's a union guy that is going to trumpet the worst case scenario, such as NWS offices having to merge. There has been no talk of merging/closing offices officially and for him to claim it's a real possibility is just needless drama right now. The media loves reporting these type of statements tho.

Not sure which NWSEO guy you are referring to, but both the NWS President and Vice-Presidents are in fact NWS employees...

SDF_Wx

[isohume]

Not sure which NWSEO guy you are referring to, but both the NWS President and Vice-Presidents are in fact NWS employees...

SDF_Wx

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that NWSEO officers outside of office stewards were not employed by the NWS due to potential conflicts of interest.

His comments were still unwarranted.

[Rainshadow]

That's why we have GPRA goals and the aviation stats show the NWS consistently beating MOS. If you think of all the flights in the country everyday, 1000s of them, the added fuel savings alone from good TAFs saves millions for the airline industry.

Although it doesn't show up on the GPRA goals, even wind direction/speed forecasts have a large impact on runway configurations and air traffic Since NYC/OKX has gone to more dedicated mets on the aviation side, the time saving I've been toid has been huge.

As per aviation grids, its too bad you can't reverse engineer, have the tafs create the grids. Its a big pet peeve about the large FAR of tsras in tafs, just wondering how you avoid the prob30s of 3tsra beyond 12 hours other than the delete key?

As for the union approach, I don't think the union president can take for granted that the budget will not be cut 30%, risk some kumbaya moment by the Senate and President and have this lovely piece legislation be enacted. On the other hand this by no means is the end of it, its going to be a tough decade ahead. A staffing line in the sand has to be drawn early. I was A76D out of the WSO I was working so am also well aware if one cries wolf too early and often, people stop hearing you after a while.

[isohume]

Although it doesn't show up on the GPRA goals, even wind direction/speed forecasts have a large impact on runway configurations and air traffic Since NYC/OKX has gone to more dedicated mets on the aviation side, the time saving I've been toid has been huge.

As per aviation grids, its too bad you can't reverse engineer, have the tafs create the grids. Its a big pet peeve about the large FAR of tsras in tafs, just wondering how you avoid the prob30s of 3tsra beyond 12 hours other than the delete key?

As for the union approach, I don't think the union president can take for granted that the budget will not be cut 30%, risk some kumbaya moment by the Senate and President and have this lovely piece legislation be enacted. On the other hand this by no means is the end of it, its going to be a tough decade ahead. A staffing line in the sand has to be drawn early. I was A76D out of the WSO I was working so am also well aware if one cries wolf too early and often, people stop hearing you after a while.

You're right about the winds. If an airport has to change their landing and takeoff pattern it causes delays or even the need for alternate airports for some flights. Winds should probably be a GPRA goal, but I'm not going to suggest it. lol.

Wow...you are the only person I've ever heard mention the reverse engineering thing wrt to the TAF grids. Folks at my office thought I was crazy mentioning this a couple years ago. They kept saying "it defeats the purpose of making the TAF grids". I was like "no it doesn't, it brings in your TAFs as an extra tool to be serped in with the model data or whatever you're using to populate the grids.". My point was...make your TAF first, then make the grids utilizing the work you just put into your TAFs. I wish I was slick enough with smart tool development to showcase how this procedure is possible. I really think it would produce better grids outside of the main TAF areas and better grids overall.

[wall_cloud]

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that NWSEO officers outside of office stewards were not employed by the NWS due to potential conflicts of interest.

His comments were still unwarranted.

Not sure where Sobien is employed but the vice is out of Lubbock I believe.