snowmanwx Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Texas with 13, California with 10, Florida with 7 and North Carolina/Indiana/Georgia with 6. These are the only states where there are 6 offices forecasting for parts of a specific state. North Carolina has 7 (not 6: Knoxville covers two counties), and Kansas also has 7; EAX and SGF county warning areas includes a small part of the state. Nebraska, Missouri, and Minnesota each have 6 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There are 122 WFOs covering 50 states in addition to Puerto Rico and Guam. There are 3 states with 6 or more WFOs or 5.7% of the states have 6+ WFOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I love people here who just think they know everything about the NWS, what they do, and how they operate. If your not an NWS met I would stay away from speculating on how operations work and should work. These are some of the most dedicated folks out there and they work there butts off in an already short staffed environment as well as in a time when decision support is becoming more popular which means working more closely with LOCAL officials and forming relationships that help save money, lives, and property. They also provide aviation services, which many of you non mets have no clue what is even entailed at an NWS office. Going off the rails but the restrictions they are currently under though as to what they can put in TAFs are very rough IMO, it really is restricting their ability to be accurate for the sake of verification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Going off the rails but the restrictions they are currently under though as to what they can put in TAFs are very rough IMO, it really is restricting their ability to be accurate for the sake of verification. What restrictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 What restrictions? Aren't there rules regarding TEMPOs and PROBs for TS beyond or inside certain hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Aren't there rules regarding TEMPOs and PROBs for TS beyond or inside certain hours? Yes, but that doesn't help our verification numbers. That's designed to be less ambiguous in the later periods. TAFs are scored for IFR in the first 6 hrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Excellent post. Unfortunately the popular (and inaccurate) impression of lazy coffee-drinking government employees extends to the NWS as well. I wish NWS critics would go take a tour of their local WFO and see the massive amount of technology, knowledge, experience, outreach, and effort that it takes to carry out its mission. No, then they can never be "right" again about something they know nothing about. Really tho, what's in the water lately? Is this national "look for something wrong with the NWS or make something up that's wrong about the NWS" month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 No, then they can never be "right" again about something they know nothing about. Really tho, what's in the water lately? Is this national "look for something wrong with the NWS or make something up that's wrong about the NWS" month? I would argue that's happening with government employees as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Yeah, not to mention coop, hydro, marine, fire, case studies, local research, university collaboration, svr wx, winter wx, media support, hazard/event decision support, and community outreach. But nope, the public forecast is all we do. Wow, we do all that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I would argue that's happening with government employees as a whole. Yes, this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Yes, this. Maybe because the average Fed employee now makes more than the average private sector employee. Maybe. It isn't "public service" when one is very well compensated. Just to be clear, I think we do need an effective NWS, I am not aware of any way to achieve cost savings from the NWS budget, and I don't doubt NWS employees, as a whole, are hard working people. Protecting life and property clearly fall within the orginal intent of the Constitution as far as the role of the Federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Maybe because the average Fed employee now makes more than the average private sector employee. Maybe. It isn't "public service" when one is very well compensated. Just to be clear, I think we do need an effective NWS, I am not aware of any way to achieve cost savings from the NWS budget, and I don't doubt NWS employees, as a whole, are hard working people. Protecting life and property clearly fall within the orginal intent of the Constitution as far as the role of the Federal government. The same is happening on the municipal, county and state level. Especially the county level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 For me, the NWS is just another bloated governmental department. What is this claim based on (besides staggering ignorance of course)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 There are wage laws that place mandates on federal employers, unrealistically large wages is one of the many sources of the massive national debt. "Employee reductions" are unpleasant but meteorology is a constantly evolving field and now requires less manual input from forecasters because of computer models and automated systems. For me, the NWS is just another bloated governmental department. Meteorology as a career is nice but is not required to validate your passion for the weather. I was considering a career in the met field but i'm content with pursuing something else while keeping weather as personal adventure or hobby. This is just following the general trend and decline of meteorology as a profitable scientific field, people shouldn't get upset about it and especially, not ask for higher wages. Can I see your data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 It's just hard for me to believe that there's even a basic understanding of the federal budget there if the claim is that the NWS is just another bloated government department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 It's just hard for me to believe that there's even a basic understanding of the federal budget there if the claim is that the NWS is just another bloated government department. I agree, but the few morons that believe this are an irrelevant minority and they can never back up their assertions. They always run and hide. lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I wanted to be an aerographer's mate (sounds kinky, but isn't) before college, but my recruiter steered me elsewhere... I wonder if a former Navy AG would qualify for a yellow tag, having worked in the field w/o a degree... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerographer's_Mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I wasn't running anywhere, I can't sit on my computer or phone all day and post on weather forums. Oh cool. Let's see your data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Jack Hayes retirement http://www.cnn.com/2...acts/index.html Federal spending data Uh no, I didn't say let's see the budget. Give me your cost/benefit ratio for specific NWS programs such as fire wx spot forecasts, warnings, or TAFs. What does the customer gain in return for the manpower hours involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 They don't gain anything because the general public does not look at them. I don't see how you can support anything associated with the federal government. I'm guessing you are a federal employee. Fire wx and aviation are not for the general public. It's not surprising you don't know that. Warnings are intended for the public though. What's the cost/benefit ratio associated with warnings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I'm not sure. I think most would agree they are necessary and beneficial, and not exactly costly financially. I'm sure it has saved some lives throughout the years. The general public usually recieves NWS products through the media or private wx sector. So again, let me see your data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 There isn't any data, just estimates...that's a good point for you to jump on since you're so gung-ho about the NWS. Oh okay. Then your bloated claim is null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 lol It just makes the NWS more irrelevant... What does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 That fact that we cannot prove that NWS products are beneficial through statistical data... The estimates are from detailed studies and they show immense value to the public from the NWS. Your studies must have shown the opposite and all I'm asking is to see your data (estimates). You say you don't have any data so you can not be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The truth is that I can not convince you that the NWS is not as necessary as you think it is, irregardless of any data that may exist. That federal paycheck is also the arbiter of what is legitimate.... The truth is you're just a blowhard without any data to back-up what you spew. Blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 The truth is that I can not convince you that the NWS is not as necessary as you think it is, irregardless of any data that may exist. That federal paycheck is also the arbiter of what is legitimate.... "Irregardless"? Really? What is your point? Even if the public gets their warnings through the private sector, they still originate at the NWS. You're simplifying this to how many people get their daily HI75/LO50 forecast from weather.gov instead of weather.com ... that's an asinine evaluation of an entity's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I guess I was being polite when I said staggering ignorance, ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I thought it would be on Isohume's level. Oh snap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebo Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So Riptide's evidence is that he thinks there should be no NWS and that's that. Good evidence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Maybe because the average Fed employee now makes more than the average private sector employee. False. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2012/11/19/white-collar-federal-worker-pay-nearly-35-percent-behind-private-sector-advisory-group-says/ Granted, we get better benefeits, but as far as salary goes, for employees with a bachelors or higher level of education (which most mets are), private sector pays more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.