BayBreeze Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Yeah, until NOAA stops appointing ex-Air Force generals to be directors, the NWS will suffer, I believe. The past couple directors have seen Air Force weather go to a major hub system and they think it can work for the NWS. That's fine for the Air Force as they only have one customer (themselves) and only one style of product (aviation). The NWS is more complex and has varying functions and wholly differing customer needs. The NWS needs an innovative and knowledgeable director from within to stand up to NOAA and Congress and to not always say "yes Sir". not only are you a straight man, youre a smart one. hit the nail on the head here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allman15 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Sounds like you have all the answers. Eberwine did the work of 12 men.......you guys are still 11 people short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would hate to say it as I know numerous gov workers post here. I agree that you don't need 6+ NWS stations per state. Maybe 4 at most. a NW, NE, SW & SE office. I know the reasons to keep people etc. But I do feel you can consolidate people into an office and cut the workforce by 5-10 % and get the same results. Br, darkstar i think i see what youre saying. close down maybe 2 NWS stations in several states, which would save money... but dont fire the people who work there; relocate them to a different station (and pay for their relocation). i think that could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 i think i see what youre saying. close down maybe 2 NWS stations is several states, which would save money... but dont fire the people who work there; relocate them to a different station (and pay for their relocation). i think that could work. Can I see your data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Can I see your data? i don't have any data. i was just posting my opinion. or is that against the rules here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 i don't have any data. i was just posting my opinion. or is that against the rules here? Oh okay, I thought you had data to make your point/opinion appear valid. No, that's not against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Oh okay, I thought you had data to make your point/opinion appear valid. No, that's against the rules. It was simply an idea that I thought could be discussed. It makes sense to me. Sorry if I rustled your jimmies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 It was simply an idea that I thought could be discussed. It makes sense to me. Sorry if I rustled your jimmies. We already had that discussion in this thread. Read back a bit. I assumed you had some data to support your take is all. I thought that would be refreshing if you did and a basis for a worthwhile talking point. I thought wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 We already had that discussion in this thread. Read back a bit. I assumed you had some data to support your take is all. I thought that would be refreshing if you did and a basis for a worthwhile talking point. I thought wrong. Ah okay, then it appears it was my own jimmies that got rustled. I thought you were trying to be a smartass. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Ah okay, then it appears it was my own jimmies that got rustled. I thought you were trying to be a smartass. My apologies. Hey np. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortmax112 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 i think i see what youre saying. close down maybe 2 NWS stations in several states, which would save money... but dont fire the people who work there; relocate them to a different station (and pay for their relocation). i think that could work. I agree, this doesn't sound unreasonable and no, it hasn't really been discussed. This discussion has mainly centered around making MAJOR changes versus "leave it as is". Closing just a few smaller offices or making them part time hasn't been discussed. And why does the burden of proof always lie on one side? Can anyone show me conclusive data that proves we need 122 offices to do our job instead of say, 100 or 110? That would still be an average of 2 per state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I agree, this doesn't sound unreasonable and no, it hasn't really been discussed. This discussion has mainly centered around making MAJOR changes versus "leave it as is". Closing just a few smaller offices or making them part time hasn't been discussed. And why does the burden of proof always lie on one side? Can anyone show me conclusive data that proves we need 122 offices to do our job instead of say, 100 or 110? That would still be an average of 2 per state. Great, then prove your point. Give some data which shows the cost/benefit to the various NWS customers and the American public closing a few "smaller" offices would have. The burden of proof lies with the one making a new and changing claim, not vice versa. The proof that the NWS structure is working is evident in GPRA goal attainment and customer feedback/satisfaction. If a change is needed it would come from Congress or our customers. They dictate the state and need of the NWS. But anyway, here is some data which shows the cost/benefit of the NWS: Weather services cost each American about $5 a year, the same price as a hamburger and fries. This investment of allows the National Weather Service to issue more than 734,000 forecasts (fire weather, public, aviation, marine) and 850,000 river and flood forecasts annually. Each year, the National Weather Service issues between 45,000 and 50,000 potentially life-saving severe weather warnings. Every day, millions of weather-based economic decisions are made in agriculture, transportation, power, construction, and other sectors of the economy. Weather and flood conditions affect the entire economy in many direct and indirect ways. Better weather, hydrologic and climate forecasts and information bring new economic opportunities to almost every sector of the economy. The labor-intensive construction industry contributes more than $200 billion annually to the U.S. economy, and is directly dependent on accurate short- and long-range weather forecasts. National Weather Service forecasts are also critical to the commercial and private transportation sector, including airline shipping and trucking industries, nationally and internationally. Airlines, for example, rely on short-term forecasts to best position their aircraft and adjust flight routes. Long-term climate forecasts help city managers better manage the purchase of resources such as salt and sand for roads and sidewalks. Hyrdrologic forecasts help communities protect their property by preparing for floods. The National Weather Service is making great strides to improve weather forecasts and warnings, with its vision of becoming America's "no surprise" weather service. The weather service has doubled the warning lead-time for tornados to approximately 12 minutes over the last five years. This extra time saves lives. Today's three-to-four day forecast is as accurate as the two day forecast was 15 years ago. The National Weather Service is working to make the 6-10 day forecast as accurate as the forecast for tomorrow. Products issued around the clock by the National Weather Service affect the lives of every American. Important advances in the science of meteorology and hydrology, coupled with major new technological capabilities for observing and analyzing the atmosphere, will allow the National Weather Service to continue providing unprecedented weather services to the Nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Great, then prove your point. Government-haters never have proof of anything. They don't even know what that means. They think their attitude is the same thing as data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Still can't believe we're debating whether it's worthwhile to fully fund a federal institution that's 1) devoted entirely to ensuring public safety, 2) popular with the public, 3) best-in-class globally, and 4) costing pennies compared with other government expenditures (like our off-the-charts military spending). This country's spending priorities are so messed up. P.S. If it were up to me, the NWS budget would be doubled, bitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Government-haters never have proof of anything. They don't even know what that means. They think their attitude is the same thing as data. What makes you think I'm a government hater from the one post I made in this thread? Never have proof of anything, what? Sure I know what it means. Did I say I think my attitude is the same thing as data? Jesus what is wrong with you people? Had I known I would get attacked, flamed, disrespected and insulted personally for simply stating something I thought might be a good idea, WITHOUT DATA OH FREAKIN NO, I wouldn't have even joined this site in the first place. It seems like a decent site in terms of the amount of knowledge, but the attitudes of the veteran members are just straight up horrible and completely unwelcoming. You guys are ridiculous. It's not even worth TRYING to present any data. It is true, I don't have any. Does that matter THAT much where you need to insult me and the poster who agreed with me? How are new ideas EVER going to be implemented if someone doesn't THINK of it first? You can't have data for something that has never happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Oh okay, I thought you had data to make your point/opinion appear valid. No, that's not against the rules. You are really passionate about this topic, at least you bring some comical value to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Still can't believe we're debating whether it's worthwhile to fully fund a federal institution that's 1) devoted entirely to ensuring public safety, 2) popular with the public, 3) best-in-class globally, and 4) costing pennies compared with other government expenditures (like our off-the-charts military spending). This country's spending priorities are so messed up. P.S. If it were up to me, the NWS budget would be doubled, bitches. Other than a quibble about military spending (which I believe will drop to the lowest level (as a percentage of GDP) since before WW1 once the expected budget cuts and withdrawal from Afghanistan happens, indeed, the NWS clearly is one of those things like the US Coast Guard, essential for safety and security and clearly a Federal responsibility. I don't understand the controversity Based on the posts from the OKX and GSP mets, it doesn't seem like there is much "fat" that can be cut of the NWS budget. Not sure who pays for GOES and other satellites (and their launches), but I did post about simulations run at the ECMWF about their forecasts for Hurricane Sandy without satellite data, and the Euro would have been a day too slow and had a Canadian landfall. If that is NWS and they can't afford to keep them up there, (I hear talk there isn't much redundancy left, (I read GOES 13 failed recently) then the current budget is too low. A little surprised this thread has gone 4 pages with people arguing the NWS is overfunded, really. And I do think the Federal government has gotten too large, but NWS is both essential for public safety, and based on NWS people (even if they would obviously believe their jobs shouldn't be cut or their workload further increased) have posted actual facts and figures that don't suggest major savings can be achieved in the NWS budget without a loss of service. ETA: I can think of some areas that have less NexRad coverage than I would like (parts of Texas come to mind) even if all the radars in the general area are operational. Places not immune to tornadoes where the radar is not seeing the low levels because of distance. They cost money, and I think it'd be good to have more. Less 'holes' in the coverage in the Northeast, but I can think of several population areas that would be covered at rather distant radars if the 'local' NexRad failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You are really passionate about this topic, at least you bring some comical value to the table. Hey thanks! I find you quite humorous too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 What makes you think I'm a government hater from the one post I made in this thread? Never have proof of anything, what? Sure I know what it means. Did I say I think my attitude is the same thing as data? Jesus what is wrong with you people? Had I known I would get attacked, flamed, disrespected and insulted personally for simply stating something I thought might be a good idea, WITHOUT DATA OH FREAKIN NO, I wouldn't have even joined this site in the first place. It seems like a decent site in terms of the amount of knowledge, but the attitudes of the veteran members are just straight up horrible and completely unwelcoming. You guys are ridiculous. It's not even worth TRYING to present any data. It is true, I don't have any. Does that matter THAT much where you need to insult me and the poster who agreed with me? How are new ideas EVER going to be implemented if someone doesn't THINK of it first? You can't have data for something that has never happened! While Bozart's post was a bit over the top, this is a science forum, so backing up your thoughts with data and facts would be a good idea. Otherwise, you just come off as foolish for not having done any research into the subject before coming to a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 For the sake of argument, let's assume the NWS director or NOAA decides to try to implement closing offices and consolidating (I think that would be a mistake but want to investigate how any closing would be done). Congress would undoubtably have to approve the budget that included the closures. Each congressman would undoubtably fight the closure as it would negatively impact their district. As I stated before, years ago the NWS tried to close down on of the regiional headquarters (that's where most of the fat like) but congress squelched in after the union and an important senator got involved. Closing down station would probalby be just as difflicult unless someone would do a cost benefits study showing that the warnings could be done just as well from a smaller number of WFOs. I thought there was a study once that was started on consolidation and the idea of super WFOs. That idea never really got off the ground. Anyway for those few advocating closures, even that is not easy and what offices would get closed would be a political cluster %$*&. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You are really passionate about this topic, at least you bring some comical value to the table. The combined cost of the Afgan and Iraqi wars would have fully funded NWS operations for at least the next 1,000 years. I think there are bigger fish to fry out there. The NWS corporate structure has approximately a 4:1 management/employee ratio, while most private sector industries the ratio is closer to 10:1. I am not in favor of the elimination of any positions at all, but it seems lost from some posts in this thread that "all of the fat" in the NWS is at the operational field level. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayBreeze Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Can I see your data? his statement makes sense. cough. two offices in texas, florida and california, and two in rhode island and delaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 You are really passionate about this topic, at least you bring some comical value to the table. Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
am19psu Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 What makes you think I'm a government hater from the one post I made in this thread? Never have proof of anything, what? Sure I know what it means. Did I say I think my attitude is the same thing as data? Jesus what is wrong with you people? Had I known I would get attacked, flamed, disrespected and insulted personally for simply stating something I thought might be a good idea, WITHOUT DATA OH FREAKIN NO, I wouldn't have even joined this site in the first place. It seems like a decent site in terms of the amount of knowledge, but the attitudes of the veteran members are just straight up horrible and completely unwelcoming. You guys are ridiculous. It's not even worth TRYING to present any data. It is true, I don't have any. Does that matter THAT much where you need to insult me and the poster who agreed with me? How are new ideas EVER going to be implemented if someone doesn't THINK of it first? You can't have data for something that has never happened! Consider this your warning. If you don't like being a part of an unabashedly pro-NWS board, you are free to leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsandhills Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Consider this your warning. If you don't like being a part of an unabashedly pro-NWS board, you are free to leave Uh, warning for what? I'm new here - I was unaware that everybody is pro-NWS or that data is required for an idea I had. Jeez, sorry. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 his statement makes sense. cough. two offices in texas, florida and california, and two in rhode island and delaware. Actually, there are zero in Rhode Island. And Connecticut. And New Hampshire. And Delaware. The offices that serve these states are located in other states. If you were talking about the future, then I doubt we'll be adding any new offices in states that currently don't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Actually, there are zero in Rhode Island. And Connecticut. And New Hampshire. And Delaware. The offices that serve these states are located in other states. If you were talking about the future, then I doubt we'll be adding any new offices in states that currently don't have any. Ever think about how far WFO CRP is from LRD? Like I said, good luck spotting low level rotation their own CWA from the NexRad in CRP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ever think about how far WFO CRP is from LRD? Like I said, good luck spotting low level rotation their own CWA from the NexRad in CRP. No doubt. SJY and FFC both have two Nexrads to cover their huge CWFAs. I'd say that's pretty efficient on the NWS's part. If anything, we need more NWS offices, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Amazing some of the comments in here from those who have no idea how the NWS operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimo Joe Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 The combined cost of the Afgan and Iraqi wars would have fully funded NWS operations for at least the next 1,000 years. I think there are bigger fish to fry out there. The NWS corporate structure has approximately a 4:1 management/employee ratio, while most private sector industries the ratio is closer to 10:1. I am not in favor of the elimination of any positions at all, but it seems lost from some posts in this thread that "all of the fat" in the NWS is at the operational field level. Really? Wow that's impressive. What study found that out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.