isohume Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Give him time, he needs to crunch the numbers. Lol. His dance has been amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Earlier in this thread a NWS empolyee said that his cell phone had more bandwith than his office. Yeah, we know the bandwidth at the offices can be improved however given the AWIPS setup and security, working from home is not really doable for an operational forecaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I have been told that storm surveys are going to be cut back - when the local office is told to park their cars then that is it. A lot of storm surveys won't happen. Also Skywarn is beting cut back - they are going towards Webinars. I can't image the cuts that are coming down the road - we will soon approach 20 trillion in debt. I would not be surprised to see super-offices - with smaller offices closing. I suppose this is going to be a boost for private meteorologists and companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Please list the non forcasting programs that you think are crucial given a 15 trillion debt. Where 40% of every government dolar is spent on interest. I guess the main question is why not just give the NWS all the money that they need to carry out their mission. Do you really think that a 39 million dollar cut out of a 3.8 trillion dollar 2013 proposed federal budget will do anything to reduce the deficit? The deficit is going to continue building up regardless of all these cuts anyway. So why not give the American People the level of protection that would save lives? http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I have been told that storm surveys are going to be cut back - when the local office is told to park their cars then that is it. A lot of storm surveys won't happen. Also Skywarn is beting cut back - they are going towards Webinars. I can't image the cuts that are coming down the road - we will soon approach 20 trillion in debt. I would not be surprised to see super-offices - with smaller offices closing. I suppose this is going to be a boost for private meteorologists and companies. I haven't heard about storm surveys being cut back. All is nominal on that front as far as our office is concerned. That's an integral part of our mission and there's been no word from our MIC or region. Wrt the spotter classes, that's correct. We've been told if a group can't get more than 50 folks together it wont be worth our while to give a talk. We've been told to steer folks toward the spotter webinars, which I think is generally a good idea, but I can see the pitfalls of that too. We don't compete with private met groups so an advantage their way is not clear to me. The NWS will still issue all the watches/warnings and issue aviation, hydro, fire wx products, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Please list the non forcasting programs that you think are crucial given a 15 trillion debt. Where 40% of every government dolar is spent on interest. The NWS operational budget for this fiscal year is 0.007% of that debt. The cost of the two wars would have funded the NWS for the next 500 years. Does it make sense to you to chop off 4% of that budget and expect to make a big dent on that debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I have been told that storm surveys are going to be cut back - when the local office is told to park their cars then that is it. A lot of storm surveys won't happen. Also Skywarn is beting cut back - they are going towards Webinars. I can't image the cuts that are coming down the road - we will soon approach 20 trillion in debt. I would not be surprised to see super-offices - with smaller offices closing. I suppose this is going to be a boost for private meteorologists and companies. I have heard nothing about cutting back storm surveys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NWS has 122 forecast offices, housing roughly 2,500 field employees, which provide services for 313 million people over the 3.79 million square miles of America for a cost of about $10 per taxpayer per year. This isn't some massively expensive and wasteful operation in need of a big trimming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I have been told that storm surveys are going to be cut back - when the local office is told to park their cars then that is it. A lot of storm surveys won't happen. Also Skywarn is beting cut back - they are going towards Webinars. I can't image the cuts that are coming down the road - we will soon approach 20 trillion in debt. I would not be surprised to see super-offices - with smaller offices closing. I suppose this is going to be a boost for private meteorologists and companies. This is where it begins to get dangerous since these cuts affect everyone including private mets organizations who use various data the NWS provides (and I am not talking forecasts). Unfortunately, budget cuts across the government are likely going to be a reality for a while now and we will all need to adapt. Hopefully there is not a reduction in offices, but that is a very good possibility down the road after the move to the cloud has finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I haven't heard about storm surveys being cut back. All is nominal on that front as far as our office is concerned. That's an integral part of our mission and there's been no word from our MIC or region. Wrt the spotter classes, that's correct. We've been told if a group can't get more than 50 folks together it wont be worth our while to give a talk. We've been told to steer folks toward the spotter webinars, which I think is generally a good idea, but I can see the pitfalls of that too. We don't compete with private met groups so an advantage their way is not clear to me. The NWS will still issue all the watches/warnings and issue aviation, hydro, fire wx products, etc. Well - I suppose. The NWS does compete with private companies - but that is another discussion and has been hashed over many times. Not saying it is bad or good - just saying what it is. You know the side of that debate that I come down on. I am in support of the NWS mission and mandate. I meant when the super-offices open and the small ones shut down. At some point this is going to benefit private companies - more and more. The super-offices have been discussed for awhile. That would be the eventual natural progression - like Canada did. I will hate it. I hope it never happens. But the hand-writing is on the wall. Massive cuts are coming in the next decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NWS has 122 forecast offices, housing roughly 2,500 field employees, which provide services for 313 million people over the 3.79 million square miles of America for a cost of about $10 per taxpayer per year. This isn't some massively expensive and wasteful operation in need of a big trimming. That figure has been floated around for awhile. Hopefully it is accurate. I know I hear it at every conference. Of course weeee know that statistic. Most people don't even know what the NWS is or what they do. The NWS does a HORRIBLE job of promoting themselves. A lot of the promotion is left up to all of us - emergency managers, private forecasters, on-air meteorologists - other. Heck - I still have to explain to people that the lady on their television set does not issue the warnings. Which is one reason they may see even bigger cuts. Who is lobbying for them? How powerful is or isn't that lobby group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 That figure has been floated around for awhile. Hopefully it is accurate. I know I hear it at every conference. Of course weeee know that statistic. The ideal NWS budget right now is about a billion a year. Divided among 313 million citizens its less than $4 a year. Of course, not all of them are taxpayers. Most people don't even know what the NWS is or what they do. The NWS does a HORRIBLE job of promoting themselves. A lot of the promotion is left up to all of us - emergency managers, private forecasters, on-air meteorologists - other. From what I understand, the Hatch Act of 1939 essentially prevents the NWS from lobbying for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Well - I suppose. The NWS does compete with private companies - but that is another discussion and has been hashed over many times. Not saying it is bad or good - just saying what it is. You know the side of that debate that I come down on. I am in support of the NWS mission and mandate. I meant when the super-offices open and the small ones shut down. At some point this is going to benefit private companies - more and more. The super-offices have been discussed for awhile. That would be the eventual natural progression - like Canada did. I will hate it. I hope it never happens. But the hand-writing is on the wall. Massive cuts are coming in the next decade. The cuts and consolidation to the Canadian weather service was a disaster, ask any of the Canadian posters on here:. http://www.americanw..._1#entry1364215 NWS operating budget is less than a billion a year, so its approximately $3 per person in this country. CONOPS consolidation failure cost the previous director of the NWS his position. While I won't disagree this idea will be floated again the union will fight this with every breath they have. Also the current building infrastructure as Bill has psoted is not structurally capable for staffing consolidation, so not only would you have to move people ($$$$), you would have to build new buildings or expand the existing ones (even more $$$$$$). Cuts don't have to be unilateral, I don't expect our township to cut the fire department budget the same percentage as they would cut the public works department. I'm not saying that the NWS budget should be increased 10% per year, but even flatlining it, cuts can be made with not much impact on field offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizznd Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 At our local office monthly staff meeting....it was mentioned about mileage reduction in government vehicles and the steps that will be needed. That is the reason behind trying to reduce trips, etc. Any trips outside of the immediate area needs permission. Cooperative observer trips for maintenance will be reduced....or combined with other missions. For example, scheduling a cooperative station visit that afternoon on the same day as an evening spotter talk. Two people can come along. Trips to conferences stopped....and non-customer outreach stopped such as science fairs or school talks, outside of the local city you are in. That is what we are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I wish some of you could stand off to the side in a WFO and watch what it's like during a severe weather outbreak or big winter storm. People want to apply seemingly simple fixes to something they don't understand. I would hate for the network to crash or to have computers fail during one of those severe outbreaks and have to have a meteorologist on duty spend time troubleshooting over the phone with a regional IT guy when you can just have the ITO handle the problem in house. I'm sure having a meteorologist spend 15 minutes on hold dealing with the NWS "help desk" or IT hotline is a great use of time when s/he should be checking radar for rotation within a thunderstorm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I would hate for the network to crash or to have computers fail during one of those severe outbreaks and have to have a meteorologist on duty spend time troubleshooting over the phone with a regional IT guy when you can just have the ITO handle the problem in house. I'm sure having a meteorologist spend 15 minutes on hold dealing with the NWS "help desk" or IT hotline is a great use of time when s/he should be checking radar for rotation within a thunderstorm. Yeah great point, I've interned at a NWS office before and I have seen that things can and do change within moments during severe weather outbreaks. Any sort of delay in services could be potentially catastrophic and life threatening. I think the problem is those that deal with budget just look at the hard numbers and nothing else. The potential danger factor with loss of services is pretty high during severe weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NWS does compete with private companies About the only way I see a perceived competition between the NWS and private industry is with the public fcst. If that's the case, then we need to stop doing the AFD for the private sector to see and use. I don't know how many times the Charlotte/Asheville/Greenville media mets have asked us when the AFD is going to be out if it happens to be late. If we're in some sort of competition, then we need to stop feeding our competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 That figure has been floated around for awhile. Hopefully it is accurate. I know I hear it at every conference. Of course weeee know that statistic. Most people don't even know what the NWS is or what they do. The NWS does a HORRIBLE job of promoting themselves. A lot of the promotion is left up to all of us - emergency managers, private forecasters, on-air meteorologists - other. Heck - I still have to explain to people that the lady on their television set does not issue the warnings. Which is one reason they may see even bigger cuts. Who is lobbying for them? How powerful is or isn't that lobby group? For the $10 figure I used number of taxpayers rather than number of citizens. The #1 lobbyist for the NWS is the NWSEO union, which has quite a bit of influence in Congress and has put a stop to numerous silly ideas and helped keep things funded in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 For the $10 figure I used number of taxpayers rather than number of citizens. The #1 lobbyist for the NWS is the NWSEO union, which has quite a bit of influence in Congress and has put a stop to numerous silly ideas and helped keep things funded in the past. True and I'd say the #2 lobbyist for the NWS is NOAA. Remember when they wanted us to start calling ourselves...NOAA's NWS? They realized we get more exposure than any of their other agencies (including themselves) and they wanted to help promote us under their large and caring wing. lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandymanColumbusGA Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 About the only way I see a perceived competition between the NWS and private industry is with the public fcst. If that's the case, then we need to stop doing the AFD for the private sector to see and use. I don't know how many times the Charlotte/Asheville/Greenville media mets have asked us when the AFD is going to be out if it happens to be late. If we're in some sort of competition, then we need to stop feeding our competition. It's a shame that this is true... The only time I look at an AFD is when I see some sort of major system heading our way to see if they saw/noticed anything that I didn't. That's AFTER I have put my own thoughts and analysis into MY forecast. Ponder this for a second (non-NWS peeps): Would we really be able to forecast as well if we didn't have the models to analyze? How could we tell if a storm is severe or not without the feeds coming from the NWS network of radars? Yes, I know there are quite a few stations that have their own "radar" but is it as accurate or quality controlled as the NWS? How are we going to get the upper air data to ingest into the models? Yes, the private businesses could do that but that would mean having as many as the NWS has now and all over the country. They're not likely to spend the money to do that when the bottom line is what matters most. I have many friends in the NWS. I just happened to talk more than them and decided to go into TV. I hold all the NWS mets in high regard for what they do over a much greater area than I forecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffwx Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 About the only way I see a perceived competition between the NWS and private industry is with the public fcst. If that's the case, then we need to stop doing the AFD for the private sector to see and use. I don't know how many times the Charlotte/Asheville/Greenville media mets have asked us when the AFD is going to be out if it happens to be late. If we're in some sort of competition, then we need to stop feeding our competition. Interesting idea. I think the goal is the to best inform the public so daily planning can be made and more importantly people can be ready for high impact events. I agree with the concept that broader national or regional offices is a bad idea, but withholding information from the public as a means of hurting competition is bad logic as well. It's not an easy answer-- nor a simple question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Interesting idea. I think the goal is the to best inform the public so daily planning can be made and more importantly people can be ready for high impact events. I agree with the concept that broader national or regional offices is a bad idea, but withholding information from the public as a means of hurting competition is bad logic as well. It's not an easy answer-- nor a simple question. It was a hypothetical. The NWS is not in competition with private industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 http://www.americanw..._1#entry1364215 NWS operating budget is less than a billion a year, so its approximately $3 per person in this country. CONOPS consolidation failure cost the previous director of the NWS his position. While I won't disagree this idea will be floated again the union will fight this with every breath they have. Also the current building infrastructure as Bill has psoted is not structurally capable for staffing consolidation, so not only would you have to move people ($$$$), you would have to build new buildings or expand the existing ones (even more $$$$$$). Cuts don't have to be unilateral, I don't expect our township to cut the fire department budget the same percentage as they would cut the public works department. I'm not saying that the NWS budget should be increased 10% per year, but even flatlining it, cuts can be made with not much impact on field offices. In terms of educating myself...Why was...."The cuts and consolidation to the Canadian weather service was a disaster, ask any of the Canadian posters on here:". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In terms of educating myself...Why was...."The cuts and consolidation to the Canadian weather service was a disaster, ask any of the Canadian posters on here:". I'm guessing you didn't read the first sentence by the Canadian member who started that thread link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm guessing you didn't read the first sentence by the Canadian member who started that thread? No mention of disaster.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 No mention of disaster.? How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue sky Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to? Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites? When you answer these questions first. Here are the list of questions in this thread alone you have not answered, or answered with another question that had nothing to do with the original question. Have had it I have all night. Can I see your data? Specifically a cost/benefit breakdown of the fire, aviation, warning, marine, hydrology, climate, decision support, outreach, and research programs? I'd like to run it up the chain. No cost benefits to the aviation industry (accuracy) to have a single person forecast for 10 terminals instead of 100? The aviation initiative at OKX cut delays in the New York area airports in half. Do you honestly think they could have done that if they were forecasting for every terminal from Bangor to Raleigh? I'm just waiting for your cost/benefit ratio breakdown. I could care less what you think of the NWS. I'm curious about your ideas tho, specifically I'd like to see your data concerning the cost/benefit ratio of NWS non-forecasting programs. The NWS operational budget for this fiscal year is 0.007% of that debt. The cost of the two wars would have funded the NWS for the next 500 years. Does it make sense to you to chop off 4% of that budget and expect to make a big dent on that debt? How many Mount Holly open houses have you been to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites? This discussion is going nowhere. Various mets have given their own real life experiences on why a reduction is not doing the american public any good. As a met with experience in both sectors (private and public), it simply is not possible to compare what the private sector companies do compared to the NWS. Both serve a very distinct but different role in both enhancing the national economy as well as protecting the general public (either in a direct or indirect role, i.e. working with emergency managers, media outlets, etc.) The work each NWS office does is far beyond simply putting out a gridded forecast. NWS employees are much more than solely forecasters as our roles include many job duties you or the general public will never see. I won't rehash what many others already have. As for the technology available...yes, it is a possibility in the future NWS CWA's are combined into larger offices/regional centers. Much is lost in such a transition, but once the technology is available, money saving trumps all else when it comes to the bean counters, but it is certainly a possibility...potentially a likelihood. It is all about cloud computing...and this is going to significant change the way every NWS office runs in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 This discussion is going nowhere. Various mets have given their own real life experiences on why a reduction is not doing the american public any good. As a met with experience in both sectors (private and public), it simply is not possible to compare what the private sector companies do compared to the NWS. Both serve a very distinct but different role in both enhancing the national economy as well as protecting the general public (either in a direct or indirect role, i.e. working with emergency managers, etc.) The work each NWS office does is far beyond simply putting out a gridded forecast. NWS employees are much much more than solely forectasters as our roles include many job duties you or the general public will never see. I won't rehash what many others already have. As for the technology available...yes, it is a possibility in the future offices CWA's are combined into larger offices/regional centers. Much is lost in such a transition, but once the technology is vailable, budget cuts and money saving trumps all else when it comes to bean counters. I think you got his/her goal. I'm done responding to questions that don't answer the original question. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.