Congress cutting NWS budget?

[MGorse]

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.

Myself and two other guys from my office were supposed to travel to WFO BOX to see the aviation grids in action before we start them. It appears that trip has been postponed due to a rather low travel budget for the rest of this fiscal year. Reading the comments on here regarding the aviation grids, it is a tad scary. I certainly do not want my office starting aviation grids blind especially based on what I have heard/read.

[MGorse]

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.

I think that is a good way of putting it.

[wall_cloud]

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.

I just think TAF grids defeat the purpose spatially. TAFs are designed for airport operations which are generally confined to isolated points. Sure there are tiny runways scattered about and even some farmers/ranchers take off from their fields. However, we have no way to validate the accuracy of those grids. Sure, we have the same problem with temp/dewpoint (blah blah blah, every public grid) but those grids do not constrict pilots based on flight rules. I think its rather dangerous really. I think the liability and workload outweigh the benefit.

[isohume]

Myself and two other guys from my office were supposed to travel to WFO BOX to see the aviation grids in action before we start them. It appears that trip has been postponed due to a rather low travel budget for the rest of this fiscal year. Reading the comments on here regarding the aviation grids, it is a tad scary. I certainly do not want my office starting aviation grids blind especially based on what I have heard/read.

Don't be too scared by them, many of the early bugs and limitations have been ironed out. Maybe we're just used to doing them now and it all seems a bit commonplace. However, we still are generally not satisfied with the procedure or the TAFs that are generated from them. There are times tho, when good grids can be generated, which gives you a better feeling about them.

I take it you're the aviation focal at your office? If so, you're probably going to run into an aversion or attitude from the staff about implementing all this. Luckily, the available guidance has increased and the smart tools are much more sophisticated now than when we had to learn all this.

[MGorse]

Don't be too scared by them, many of the early bugs and limitations have been ironed out. Maybe we're just used to doing them now and it all seems a bit commonplace. However, we still are generally not satisfied with the procedure or the TAFs that are generated from them. There are times tho, when good grids can be generated, which gives you a better feeling about them.

I take it you're the aviation focal at your office? If so, you're probably going to run into an aversion or attitude from the staff about implementing all this. Luckily, the available guidance has increased and the smart tools are much more sophisticated now than when we had to learn all this.

Well, that is a little encouraging. Nope, not the office aviation focal point but the union steward. I just do not want to really implement something blind. We do have now someone on board who came from WFO BOX so at least one person in the office has worked with aviation grids some.

[isohume]

I just think TAF grids defeat the purpose spatially. TAFs are designed for airport operations which are generally confined to isolated points. Sure there are tiny runways scattered about and even some farmers/ranchers take off from their fields. However, we have no way to validate the accuracy of those grids. Sure, we have the same problem with temp/dewpoint (blah blah blah, every public grid) but those grids do not constrict pilots based on flight rules. I think its rather dangerous really. I think the liability and workload outweigh the benefit.

I agree. The metwatching alone cannot possibly account for needed updates at every small airfield in your CWFA. This could leave small airports under the "same" TAF when you are focused on amending for the large airports. Folks jumping into their Cessnas and taking off from their backyard airfield will be underserved when, in fact, they will believe they are being served. I don't see non-TAF sites becoming official...but it's crazy they are already making these available to the general public on our website.

http://www.erh.noaa....on/aviation.php

[stormguy80]

You are missing my point. Its not what I think, I agree with you; its what can be proved to people who aren’t mets but are making decisions about what to cut from a cost / benefit point of view. You have to think from their point of view and beaurocrats aren't exactly known to be scientifically inclined. Even if can be proved that human forecasts provide economic value, can it be proved that having 30% less mets involved in operations would cost more money than it would save? That’s what this argument is really about since I don’t think anyone would have ALL mets axed and have everything be completely automated.

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.

[nynjpaweather]

epic fail dood. EPIC!!

dont know where to start cuz your statements are flawed from all directions. well, unless you're a wall st goon or big business CEO.

oh, you forgot to mention getting rid of unemployment benefits too. heck, lets not have a govt at all. just put an old rich white guy in the WH and just let everyone across this great nation walk around strapped fending for themselves. no need for police, firefighters, teachers, etc.....we can turn back the clock 100yrs and just have a wild wild west across the entire land.

and its funny, but im not laughing, that the party who is ALL ABOUT small govt and less spending had the BIGGEST govt in GW's 8yrs in office, and spent THE MOST IN HISTORY!!

oh i get it...wait til the liberal gets into the WH and just blame HIM for it. esp cuz hes black, just start up the hate train and those simple minded folks who live in fear will just follow!

Well, you see my party has never been in power. I'm a Libertarian and if we were in power, we never would have been in wars for 8 years for no reason and we wouldn't have all this debt. Your irrational rant only proves one thing, you aren't ready to deal with reality but reality will certainly have no problem dealing with you. Continue to jump off the ledge lemming.

[famartin]

You are missing my point. Its not what I think, I agree with you; its what can be proved to people who aren’t mets but are making decisions about what to cut from a cost / benefit point of view. You have to think from their point of view and beaurocrats aren't exactly known to be scientifically inclined. Even if can be proved that human forecasts provide economic value, can it be proved that having 30% less mets involved in operations would cost more money than it would save? That’s what this argument is really about since I don’t think anyone would have ALL mets axed and have everything be completely automated.

Of course the caveat over the short term, at least, is that by furloughing offices and cutting upper-air obs, those same models are inevitably going to be less accurate.

[Ed Lizard]

IMHO, since this thread is devolving into the ridiculously simplistic evil rich white people that hate Obama just because he is Black kind of political stupidity, it should either be moved to AP or locked.

Just saying.

[nynjpaweather]

IMHO, since this thread is devolving into the ridiculously simplistic evil rich white people that hate Obama just because he is Black kind of political stupidity, it should either be moved to AP or locked.

Just saying.

Ed,

Come on now, you know that anyone that sees trillions of dollars of debt as a problem for our future is clearly a racist. lol

[stormguy80]

I don't think they will cut upper air obs. But again, the fact that that is even on the table just goes to what I am saying. Beaurocrats are not scientifically minded and unless you can show through hard stats and figures the benefit of having certain things such as upper air obs, or a certain number of staff, etc..things are vulnerable to being cut because cuts do give you a measurable figure of money saved. The cost of these cuts wouldn't be apparent until a noticable trend of poorer forecasts, etc... starts to develop but then they will just try to blame it on something else. Not saying its right or fair but that's how politics works.

Of course the caveat over the short term, at least, is that by furloughing offices and cutting upper-air obs, those same models are inevitably going to be less accurate.

[famartin]

I don't think they will cut upper air obs.

The current "idea" of covering the short-term shortfall by furloughing offices for 4 weeks at a time would necessarily cut upper air obs as those offices are shut down. Unless they decide to spare upper air offices from the furlough (which I would doubt since cutting upper air obs would cut costs).

[stormguy80]

I don't think in the short term the cuts will go through. But long term (5-10 years and beyond) I think cuts will be made.

The current "idea" of covering the short-term shortfall by furloughing offices for 4 weeks at a time would necessarily cut upper air obs as those offices are shut down. Unless they decide to spare upper air offices from the furlough (which I would doubt since cutting upper air obs would cut costs).

[isohume]

The current "idea" of covering the short-term shortfall by furloughing offices for 4 weeks at a time would necessarily cut upper air obs as those offices are shut down. Unless they decide to spare upper air offices from the furlough (which I would doubt since cutting upper air obs would cut costs).

I'm ready for mine. Bring it on!!

Too bad this is something that probably wont come to pass.

[ALhurricane]

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.

It is anything but needless drama. The office closing scenario is not something the Union dreamed up on its own. Is it the worst case scenario? Sure, but it is a legitimate scenario that has been discussed. Also, the NWSEO president and vice president are NWS employees.

[isohume]

It is anything but needless drama. The office closing scenario is not something the Union dreamed up on its own. Is it the worst case scenario? Sure, but it is a legitimate scenario that has been discussed. Also, the NWSEO president and vice president are NWS employees.

Yeah SDF_Wx already said that.

Anyway...why spout worst case scenarios out to the media? I haven't heard it mentioned by management the region or the union.

[ALhurricane]

Yeah SDF_Wx already said that.

Anyway...why spout worst case scenarios out to the media? I haven't heard it mentioned by management the region or the union.

Management and region cannot openly discuss such matters prior to law being passed. Plus, It has most certainly been mentioned by the Union, just go to the NWSEO homepage. Local stewards across the country have mentioned this possibility in their media interviews and have discussed it with local employees. All the union has done is demonstrate what would likely happen if H.R. 1 becomes law. Is it likely to become law? No, but it is a possibility...enough of one where the ramifications need to be understood by all those who it will effect.

[isohume]

u

Management and region cannot openly discuss such matters prior to law being passed. Plus, It has most certainly been mentioned by the Union, just go to the NWSEO homepage. Local stewards across the country have mentioned this possibility in their media interviews and have discussed it with local employees. All the union has done is demonstrate what would likely happen if H.R. 1 becomes law. Is it likely to become law? No, but it is a possibility...enough of one where the ramifications need to be understood by all those who it will effect.

I guess I'll wait for the law to be passed to worry about it then. I didn't realize union reps were talking it up. Our office steward hasn't sent anything out on the matter. Ha...the likelihood is like slight pops on new day 7. Probably not worth mentioning to the media at this time.

[famartin]

I guess I'll wait for the law to be passed to worry about it then. I didn't realize union reps were talking it up. Our office steward hasn't sent anything out on the matter. Ha...the likelihood is like slight pops on new day 7. Probably not worth mentioning to the media at this time.

Personally... if it helps ensure that the budget cuts are reversed, I would say that it is worth mentioning.

[ALhurricane]

I guess I'll wait for the law to be passed to worry about it then. I didn't realize union reps were talking it up. Our office steward hasn't sent anything out on the matter. Ha...the likelihood is like slight pops on new day 7. Probably not worth mentioning to the media at this time.

I'd rather be proactive than reactive. Without the support of core partners and the public, these type of cuts become increasingly possible. I am very surprised your steward has not mentioned anything.

[Rainshadow]

You are missing my point. Its not what I think, I agree with you; its what can be proved to people who aren’t mets but are making decisions about what to cut from a cost / benefit point of view. You have to think from their point of view and beaurocrats aren't exactly known to be scientifically inclined. Even if can be proved that human forecasts provide economic value, can it be proved that having 30% less mets involved in operations would cost more money than it would save? That’s what this argument is really about since I don’t think anyone would have ALL mets axed and have everything be completely automated.

Unfortunately what might end up happening under the 30% rolling furlough cut is something tragic and then all of the money that was supposedly saved by this budget move will be lost and then some in lawsuits.

Two words: public safety.

Is it worth their gamble and that would be what a 30% cut would amount to gambling on lives not being affected.

[baroclinic_instability]

Management and region cannot openly discuss such matters prior to law being passed. Plus, It has most certainly been mentioned by the Union, just go to the NWSEO homepage. Local stewards across the country have mentioned this possibility in their media interviews and have discussed it with local employees. All the union has done is demonstrate what would likely happen if H.R. 1 becomes law. Is it likely to become law? No, but it is a possibility...enough of one where the ramifications need to be understood by all those who it will effect.

It definitely won't be signed into law as is. Some level of budget cuts seem likely though this year--but even the ignorant house republicans realize you simply can not slash everything down the line and expect things to run in any effective manner. It just doesn't happen that way and they know that. It is grandstanding by the house repubs as they both try and please the constituents that hired them into office while fully understanding some pretty ridiculous cuts needed to be put on the table to get much of anything passed through the senate. In other words--political games at its finest (or worst). In reality the bigger worry is the overall debt and how that problem will be tackled in the near future. Even if this FY 2012 cut were made--I think the overall ramifications would be quickly seen through significant and unfortunate high impact weather events. The bigger worry for every American should be the large scale debt problem and how it will be dealt with.

[Rainshadow]

It definitely won't be signed into law as is. Some level of budget cuts seem likely though this year--but even the ignorant house republicans realize you simply can not slash everything and expect things to run. It just doesn't happen that way and they know that. It is grandstanding by the house repubs as they both try and please the constituents that hired them into office while fully understanding some pretty ridiculous cuts needed to be put on the table to get much of anything passed through the senate. In reality the bigger worry is the overall debt and how that problem will be tackled in the near future.

I agree, its political grandstanding for this fyear for most, but there comes a point if the budget is going to be cut (vs stagnated) for x number of future years, something would have to give.

[Bozart]

why spout worst case scenarios out to the media?

Why not?

That's what you do with every tornado warning, isn't it? My county has had its share of tornadoes over the years. Not one at my house, though -- ever. Worst-case scenarios are your business.

So why shouldn't your union be doing its job of protecting your interests, and the nation's? The Weather Service is politically popular. That fact should be put to good use.

[wall_cloud]

Lets look at this rolling close down idea from a different perspective. With NWS forecasters being labeled as mission critical, would they still not come to work (no pay) regardless of whether their office is "open"? Now for the support staff, that would be a different story. I don't know...I'm just throwing that out there.

I couldn't imagine doing a winter weather forecast (especially in the transition states) without upper air. The horror!

[Rainshadow]

Lets look at this rolling close down idea from a different perspective. With NWS forecasters being labeled as mission critical, would they still not come to work (no pay) regardless of whether their office is "open"? Now for the support staff, that would be a different story. I don't know...I'm just throwing that out there.

I couldn't imagine doing a winter weather forecast (especially in the transition states) without upper air. The horror!

I don't know , its different from the government shutdown which is probably coming again.

[isohume]

I'd rather be proactive than reactive. Without the support of core partners and the public, these type of cuts become increasingly possible. I am very surprised your steward has not mentioned anything.

Yeah me too. If there is this whirlwind of discussion ongoing you'd think he'd mention something at least.

[isohume]

Why not?

That's what you do with every tornado warning, isn't it? My county has had its share of tornadoes over the years. Not one at my house, though -- ever. Worst-case scenarios are your business.

So why shouldn't your union be doing its job of protecting your interests, and the nation's? The Weather Service is politically popular. That fact should be put to good use.

[AtticaFanatica]

My county has had its share of tornadoes over the years. Not one at my house, though -- ever.

WOW