donsutherland1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 IMO, the proposed cuts to NWS are a very bad idea for the following reasons: 1. Public safety is a core function of government and NWS plays a key role in promoting public safety. 2. NWS funding is not the reason the U.S. is facing a looming fiscal crisis. Tinkering with programs that are not driving the fiscal imbalances are nothing but an attempt to forego the tough decisions that will have to be made down the road. 3. Even if the NWS were eliminated, the budget savings would not alter the nation's long-term fiscal trajectory. 4. NWS is a high value-added entity. IMO, the continuing lack of a coherent public policy/fiscal strategy in Washington has increased the likelihood that political leaders--Democrats and Republicans--will attempt ad hoc measures (largely cosmetic in nature) to demonstrate that they are trying to address the nation's fiscal challenges. Such proposals will not differentiate between the function of the programs involved, the value they offer, or whether they constitute investments (with long-term benefits) or expenditures (with no long-term benefits). The ad hoc approach is not an optimal one, even if it remains the most likely to be attempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Hopefully this is okay to post here. I would like to encourage folks to register at this site and sign the petition. https://wwws.whiteho...ervice/nQVPd4l2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Hopefully this is okay to post here. I would like to encourage folks to register at this site and sign the petition. https://wwws.whiteho...ervice/nQVPd4l2 I did and signed the petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortmax112 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 There may be some merit to what you are saying. In fact I used to think the way you did when I was in the private sector and forecasted for the whole country from a centralized location. The thing you have to remember though is that it’s tough to make one to one comparisons between the two sectors. There is no “one size fits all” model to how many offices you need to forecast for the whole country. In the private sector where its profit driven you’ve gotta have a lean and mean operation where you as a result are only focusing on the major markets and/or significant weather and letting guidance do almost all the rest. I know, I was there. The problem with this is A LOT of things get missed. This is ok since missing things in sparsely populated regions isn’t going to bring down the company since those areas are not driving your profits. In the NWS it’s different since protecting life and property is THE main job and this means that missing a tornado warning where someone dies, even if its just in small town in Kansas, is a real big deal. Consequently, you have to make sure you have the resources to do the job correctly. Plus, as others have said, there is the fact that the NWS does lots of other stuff like outreach, hydrology, fire weather, aviation, etc. that a lot of private shops may not necessarily do. For these reason, I think you need local offices…maybe less than 122 but still at least an average of about 1 if not 2 per state so about 50 or 100. But then there is the problem of going through the whole restructuring process which in and of itself is very costly. As a result, I think it makes more sense to go after other areas of the government that have far more waste than there is with the NWS WFOs… 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...
Jim Marusak Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 also, which congressman and senator will willingly give up their weather forecast offices? not saying it couldn't be done, but i see a lot of angry constituents if and when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Given all the technology advances the last 20 years......No way to reduce 122 forcast sites? The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media. The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills, public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS. It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media. The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency managements working on preparedness, drills, public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and decision support services briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on the long term partnerships and trust when the storm hits. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to evacuate...we evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don;t need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why this would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists.... Yes, we are going more and more toward decision support services as part of routine operations; it would become prohibitively difficult to impossible to brief on the state and county levels during warning events if you start combining offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media. The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills, public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS. It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said. Great post. I'd also add maintaining the climate network. If the local offices leave, some contractor groups are going to have to take it over I imagine. Folks making $12 an hour with no personal interest in the meticulous nature of climate. I've seen the climate record take a negative hit with ThreadX already and it doesn't need a more systematic degradation. We need to be better custodians of the nation's climate, not worse at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media. The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills, public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS. It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said. This times a million. Speaking as an EM, I love being able to dial into a trained meteorologist any time of the day. It makes our decision making processes that much quicker and easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The problem with eliminating local offices is that you lose touch with local emergency managers, officials, and local media. The local WFOs develop strong working relationships with Emergency management working on preparedness, drills, public safety campaigns. More importantly during times of potential disastrous storms, they TRUST us, because they know us and have developed a working relationship with us for many years. It is these partnerships that make our warnings and decision support briefings so effective. They make crucial life and money saving decisions based on our briefings and warnings when the storm hits This is where the long term partnerships and trust come in. This was why we only lost 2 people during tropical storm LEE and IRENE in our forecast area which caused over 1 billion dollars worth of damage in our CWA alone. Both people refused to evacuate that is why they died. Our EMs evacuated almost 100,000 people before the floods hits. Our long term partnerships and outreach was the key to this success. The models can do most of the forecasting...so based on forecasting alone we don't need 122 WFOs...but the warnings...our mission is the reason why we need 122 WFOS. It would be a total disaster...losing contact with our core EM partners. That is the difference between private and public sector meteorologists. Accu-weather, the weather channel and many others don't need to be in all locations and can provide excellent forecasts from afar. NWS needs to be embedded in our communities to build relationships to make our mission of warnings and forecasts for the protection of life and property successful. enough said. I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation: NWS WFO's in Florida: Key West Miami Tampa Bay Melbourne Jacksonville Tallahassee ...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami. That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state). As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call. I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won. Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 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. I meant and should have said The NWS does compete with private businesses in some peoples eyes. I am sure that some at Accu-Weather (and elsewhere) believe they are competing (as we have seen and heard over the years). I do not personally see the NWS competing with private industry. I see them as a complimentary service to each other. Just to be clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 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. The conversation I had with a local NWS employee didn't say they were going to stop storm surveys - he said they could be and likely would be cut back (at some point). He also said that when they are told to park their cars - then that is it. They have to park their cars. Cutting down on mileage and so forth. He suggested that the bigger events would likely receive more attention for surveys - smaller events - not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Maybe all of the ITOs can get jobs at the new National Water Center... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120221_nwc.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radarman Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Maybe all of the ITOs can get jobs at the new National Water Center... http://www.noaanews....120221_nwc.html Wow that place looks cool, and I'm sure they'll be hiring IT staff. Unfortunate name however. And does NOAA really need to be calling it the NWC already? Sorry, I'm OT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation: NWS WFO's in Florida: Key West Miami Tampa Bay Melbourne Jacksonville Tallahassee ...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami. That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state). As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call. I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won. Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of ) Well, those WSO(s) also forecast and warn for parts of Georgia and Alabama also. Given that Florida has the most thunderstorms and lightning related deaths in the country, I doubt they are all hanging around yawning waiting for a hurricane to strike. Alot of the innovation of hurricane related products have come from these offices. We were briefing down to the township emergency management level with Irene and she was suppose to be a Cat 1 at landfall. A national call would last longer than the hurricane itself. There are local needs that are based on more than just wind. I would beg to differ about consolidating aviation forecast areas. The OKX office added two meteorologists to have a dedicated aviation unit. Its not just about issuing TAF(s). They are on briefing conference calls with Tracons, CWSU etc. and for their efforts delays at the NYC airports are down 50 percent. How much money has that saved the airlines? Now give them 20 to 30 more TAF sites to forecast. Operational field personnel comprise about 55% of NWS working staff. Even if consolidation were to occur, new buildings would have to be constructed and paid moving of personnel would force a fairly substantial increase in the budget. How many years before savings kick in? I will agree with you about Santorum, I'd be making this post after my day shift at Wegman's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Well, those WSO(s) also forecast and warn for parts of Georgia and Alabama also. Given that Florida has the most thunderstorms and lightning related deaths in the country, I doubt they are all hanging around yawning waiting for a hurricane to strike. Alot of the innovation of hurricane related products have come from these offices. We were briefing down to the township emergency management level with Irene and she was suppose to be a Cat 1 at landfall. A national call would last longer than the hurricane itself. There are local needs that are based on more than just wind. I would beg to differ about consolidating aviation forecast areas. The OKX office added two meteorologists to have a dedicated aviation unit. Its not just about issuing TAF(s). They are on briefing conference calls with Tracons, CWSU etc. and for their efforts delays at the NYC airports are down 50 percent. How much money has that saved the airlines? Now give them 20 to 30 more TAF sites to forecast. Operational field personnel comprise about 55% of NWS working staff. Even if consolidation were to occur, new buildings would have to be constructed and paid moving of personnel would force a fairly substantial increase in the budget. How many years before savings kick in? I will agree with you about Santorum, I'd be making this post after my day shift at Wegman's. Thanks for the reply. Good things to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I meant and should have said The NWS does compete with private businesses in some peoples eyes. I am sure that some at Accu-Weather (and elsewhere) believe they are competing (as we have seen and heard over the years). I do not personally see the NWS competing with private industry. I see them as a complimentary service to each other. Just to be clear Yeah Accuweather is the only agency to my knowledge that publicly claims some sort of competition with the NWS. However, their obvious agenda has been well documented over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yeah Accuweather is the only agency to my knowledge that publicly claims some sort of competition with the NWS. However, their obvious agenda has been well documented over the years. The Weather Channel must have spent years saying thank-you for not realizing who your true competitors are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The Weather Channel must have spent years saying thank-you for not realizing who your true competitors are. Lol...yeah they never quite got it. If you're on the way to slay the dragon, you may want to make sure to bring your glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 weather.gov's been down a fair bit (not sure how much, but I checked last night at 6 PM and again this AM at 4) the last 12 hours or so. anyone know what's up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 weather.gov's been down a fair bit (not sure how much, but I checked last night at 6 PM and again this AM at 4) the last 12 hours or so. anyone know what's up? They think it was a network/ISP problem not the site itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Sadly money is money...if NOAA decides to allocate less to us this year...not much we can do. Hopefully they don't keep cutting out every budget year. As MNTransplant said OAR saw cuts the previous go around, one can only hope this is not a new yearly thing. It certainly forces one to wonder why, after a budget increase to NOAA overall, that they chose to actually cut the NWS budget. There are two reasons a Service, Department or Agency looses budget $$ in a given year, regardless of the Fed budget pressures: 1) there is a known and managed shift in organizational priorities or service delivery (ie., going to the cloud, reorg to modern structure, etc...) or 2) poor anticipatory management by the organization executives. No good government executive "has their budget cut". The current budget and spending pressures were very easily known at least three years ago. No one making these decisions should be surprised. so its gotta be one of the two reasons above. The budget should not be cut every year unless the Service is being mismanaged or there is some organizational tactic in play here. It should not be hard for you guys on the inside to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyFL Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I do like this post, along with some other arguments on both sides of this discussion, however, as an example for consolidation: NWS WFO's in Florida: Key West Miami Tampa Bay Melbourne Jacksonville Tallahassee ...and the NWS Tropical Prediction Center also in Miami. That seems to be a lot for a state that most of the time sees fairly tranquil weather. In the event a tropical system arises, the NWS WFOs basically repeat the TPC guidance on wind radii, storm surge, etc. (and with good reason). There seems to be a lot of overlapping of duties and products. In addition, I'm sure we currently have the technology to combine the marine and TAF forecasts of all the above offices to one central office located somewhere else (even out of state). As far as the working relationships with emergency management, law enforcement, etc., can't those be incorporated through a national program, conference call, etc.? That is how it is done in the aviation world. Regarding trust, I'm not sure if it is the job of the NWS to "build trust". "Here is the forecast in writing", the public, media or emergency manager can do what they want with it. Doesn't the public, media or emergency manager face a significant liability if they don't trust it? They certainly don't make their own forecasts or policies that contradict the NWS? If the wind is forecast to be 60 knots, it should be irrelevant how that information is presented. I would think there is a communication problem if there is a need for a personalized or verbal call. I'm not saying it is a good idea to remove ITO's as the budget proposal indicates, however attempting to stop any and all budget reductions may increase the likelihood of irrational arbitrary cuts which do hurt NWS benefits and products. It may be a better to counter the budget cuts with things that currently can be cut without a reduction in products and services. Attempting to keep budgets and services static seems like a uphill battle that can't be won. Of course, if Santorum wins perhaps we will get all of our forecasts from Accu-Weather once the NWS shuts down? (Joke, kind of ) Well, they tried to close Key West in the 90s and that didn't last. Congressional pressure got them a full forecast office and a new hurricane proof building. Remember, TAE and JAX cover huge sections of AL and GA. The National Hurricane Center (it is no longer called the Tropical Prediction Center, BTW - Bill Read did away with that name) is a national center and even covers the whole Atlantic and much of the Pacific. I've been around long enough to see a NWS with: -State Forecast offices with responsibility for the whole state (some large states were broken up into several offices, like Texas and California) -Many local WSOs with small staffs (many met-techs) and small CWAs but highly visible in the local community Then after "modernization" in the 90s w/ NEXRAD and later AFOS we got: -A forecast office (WFO) based on radar coverage w/ all meteorologists and total responsibility for their CWA. It is interesting to see that no matter what they do, someone wants to change it. I was around for the mess in the 90s when they closed many WSOs and it was ugly. I knew a guy who was OIC at a closed WSO, but the local congressman wouldn't let the office close. So this fellow, after a long career w/ NWS, only went to the office once a day to get the mail for over a year. They had a WSR-57 radar and all of the equipment still there, but couldn't close the office even though it had no duties. My friend was the only employee and had nothing to do, he played a bunch of golf though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They think it was a network/ISP problem not the site itself. Good thing you all still have a full contingent of ITO's...god help you if you were down to 24... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 WPVI ABC6 did interview Dan today about the proposed budget cuts. It will be on the 6 and 11 o'clock news tonight. It wasn't on at 6, I don't know if they are saving it for 11 or tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMolineuxLM1 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 WPVI ABC6 did interview Dan today about the proposed budget cuts. It will be on the 6 and 11 o'clock news tonight. It wasn't on at 6, I don't know if they are saving it for 11 or tomorrow. I hope someone has a clip of it and puts it up on youtube or something for us to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I hope someone has a clip of it and puts it up on youtube or something for us to see. Lee, I didn't see it on their web site this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Pretty interesting and comical "meeting" the NWSEO had with NOAA management's Dr. Sullivan the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Pretty interesting and comical "meeting" the NWSEO had with NOAA management's Dr. Sullivan the other day. At least now we know where this idea came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 At least now we know where this idea came from. Funny there's no plan tho. Wow. Actually not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.