House Budget Proposal Could Devastate the NWS’s Watch/Warning Forecasts

[Tyler]

Martin, some of us happen to like PBS.

Won't be surprised if we start seeing commercials on there soon.

Commercials raise revenue, so why not?

[toxictwister00]

You guys don't get it. We're broke. As in out of money. In order to get out of debt, we have to stop spending. Obviously spending cuts are never fun for anyone involved, but we have to do it. Otherwise, the dollar will continue to be devalued and prices for essentials like gas and food will continue to go up.

And I know this sounds crazy, but the NWS could ask for donations. Or - dare I say it - become a private company. And if they can't make it, then a private company like TWC will step up to the plate. The point is, while I like the NWS, we don't need the government to tell us that a storm is bad and we should head for cover. The picture the article paints is just a ploy to get you scared and angry, so you'll tell your congressmen and women to say no to the cuts. In other words, they think you're stupid.

I can agee with that, but the part that concerned me was about how the computer models and hurricane forecasting could be affected. You can use TWC, Accuweather, Local news or whoever, but with decreased resources on that I think it would make forecasting that much more difficult.

[tpirfan28]

Let's take a deep breath here.

(A) PBS and NPR both are being threatened with complete removal of federal funds.  This will have an impact, but a lot of money comes from private donations (majority, I believe).
( Cut programs or raise taxes.

[yourweathertoday]

As someone mentioned earlier, cutting isn't fun. Sometimes, it'll hurt like hell. But we've got to begin cutting now, lest we risk bankruptcy, or worse....and as Tyler said, other outlets and products do serve the general public better. We're all going to have to learn to do more with less. So basically, deal with it.

[yourweathertoday]

Let's take a deep breath here.

(A) PBS and NPR both are being threatened with complete removal of federal funds.  This will have an impact, but a lot of money comes from private donations (majority, I believe).
( Cut programs or raise taxes.

Raising taxes only gets you so far, as the Laffer curve clearly demonstrates. And don't forget that taxes also strain markets.

[Mike M]

At this rate, i don't think the economy will ever improve. I'll probably just be stick with some cheap low-pay job instead of a career in broadcasting that I have always been dreaming of. I wish we'd go back to how things were in the 90's, but I don't think that will happen.

[TWCToday]

Will the economy improve by 2015-2020 when I start looking for a career?

I personally believe it will! We are figuring out now that what we are doing is not sustainable. The changes we make in the next 5 years or so will hopefully set us on the right path!

[P71nnacle]

I apologize for posting a slightly political thread, but this is something where the traditional "cut funding" platform may cost more than it saves (including lives). According to http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/house-fiscal-11-budget-proposal-could-devastate-the-national-weather-services-life-saving-warnings-and-forecasts-116235429.html this article, the recent legislative changes warranted a 30% cut in National Weather Service funding. Among the cuts would include (potential impacts in parentheses):

-Reductions in balloon soundings (critical for model compilations and severe weather predictions) from twice daily to as little as once per 48 hours.
-Elimination of the Hurricane Hunter jet (essentially means we go back to 1924 in terms of hurricane forecasting; no data to assure satellite-based forecasts are accurate)
-Elimination of NWS offices (a spectrum of problems, from forecasting inexperience to decreased warning time for floods, tornadoes, and other severe - read life-threatening - weather)
-Elimination of weather observations (can't tell what the temperature is outside or make plans)
-Reduction in money spent for aviation forecasting (more plane crashes; increased chances of icing/turbulence forecasts)

Now, I'm all for the reduction in spending in general by government, but this is unacceptable. In a comparison, if the federal government cut local fire, ambulance, and police coverage by 30%, there would be many people impeached. Yet, because of the "always wrong" attitude, meteorological data may soon be harder to come by. Think of it this way (because I lived in Indiana at one time during my adult life): If it is 2 AM and a tornado is outside your house, would you like 15 minutes warning from your local NWS office, or 60 seconds warning when you hear a loud roar and the spouse says "it is a train or a plane, go back to sleep, you have a meeting at 8am"?

I figure since there is a general interest in weather activity on this board, that I would share this with you. But this goes to show that there may be a little but too much zealousness when it comes to money spending and cuts.

[Eric]

I agree with you completely.  Reduction of funding for the NWS is just outright dangerous.  You mentioned a great point - tornado warnings.  These have been improved to the point where there is often enough warning time to move to safety, and this dramatically reduces the number of deaths.  (Yet another reason why I say that every household should have at least one NOAA Weather Radio.)

However, in order to provide such early warnings, frequent monitoring of atmospheric conditions is necessary, and you have to have well-trained meteorologists keeping track of things.  Less monitoring will only lead to shorter warning times, and, sadly, unnecessary deaths as a result.

[TWCToday]

Now, I'm all for the reduction in spending in general by government, but this is unacceptable. In a comparison, if the federal government cut local fire, ambulance, and police coverage by 30%, there would be many people impeached. Yet, because of the "always wrong" attitude, meteorological data may soon be harder to come by. Think of it this way (because I lived in Indiana at one time during my adult life): If it is 2 AM and a tornado is outside your house, would you like 15 minutes warning from your local NWS office, or 60 seconds warning when you hear a loud roar and the spouse says "it is a train or a plane, go back to sleep, you have a meeting at 8am"?

I figure since there is a general interest in weather activity on this board, that I would share this with you. But this goes to show that there may be a little but too much zealousness when it comes to money spending and cuts.

Is it possible to cut expansion programs and just maintain the systems in place? The 30% is a bit ridiculous and I doubt it happens. I thought Hurricane Hunters fell under the Air Force?

[P71nnacle]

Sorry for the double post (I looked for the thread in the wrong place....it's what happens when you don't frequent the site). Anyways, I am going to state that as a former intern at the NWS, all the private agencies need the services NWS provides.

Why do I say that? Here's why.

-Imagine if you had to pay for weather content. And believe me, if you've ever used AccuWeather's site, you know why. Imagine if it cost $2 every time you wanted to see a radar. $3 every time you wanted the 7-day forecast. And you wouldn't get a warning unless you signed up for the "Premium Plan" for $19.95 a month plus tax. As asinine as it sounds, it has been tried before.

-Not all stations have their own radar. I'm willing to bet 75% of TV stations use NWS radar. And, if they want a radar for wide angles, they don't have competing affiliates in competing companies' radars - they use NWS.

-The sounding reductions may be the biggest blow to them all. If any of you have used Skew-T's to forecast (and if you are in the weather weenie field, you WILL use them, guaranteed ) the only way we can judge how accurate they are is by actual soundings. The soundings are taken twice daily, just like models. (And I know about the RUC and the 06/18z runs, but that is a new thing).

 And I'll let you in on another secret. On severe weather days, we at the NWS had additional soundings per the SPC's request. Their severe weather forecasts, on which millions of lives depend on, need those additional soundings. You can't get a feeling for the "loaded gun" scenario unless you have a radiosonde in the air.

-Privately funding weather forecasting is the biggest mistake of them all (and I'm surprised that anyone would say that). Essentially, if you say "OK, the satellites, the radars, the obs grids, let's privatize them". Who do you think has $350 million to buy the satellite? $20 million to buy the obs grid? $5 billion to buy the radar network? Surely not anyone on here. Joel Myers and AccuWeather couldn't wait to get their paws on that. And if you're an independent/consulting forecaster, your information - all of it - could come from a "AccuWeather Professional" site, for which they could charge you whatever they wanted to get money from you - because you wouldn't have any data, and you'd be slave to their charges for $30/month "basic" packages, or whatever.

Be very scared. Be very, very scared if they go through with this. You don't know if that tornado warning may be there when it's three miles from your house.

[texasstooge]

Just goes to show you that congress is willing to do anything to save face even if it hurts the public (us).  I say it's CLOBBERIN' TIME!

[Mr. Rainman]

The Wisconsin public is already ten steps ahead of you there. 

[Pop Light Brown]

Congress wants to cut funding for PBS.  Congress wants to cut funding for the National Weather Service.  Congress wants to cut funding for pretty much everything except its own paychecks.

Bad, bad stuff.

Don't forget their pet projects also.

[Pop Light Brown]

Just goes to show you that congress is willing to do anything to save face even if it hurts the public (us).  I say it's CLOBBERIN' TIME!

That's part of the problem. People constantly say that want things to change and the foolishness to stop, but when election time comes, voters keep electing the same polarizing incumbents again and again.

Yes, the country and the world is broke. Spending does need to be reigned in. A lot of federal bureaucrats can be cut as far as I am concerned because many federal agencies are doing the exact same jobs. Consolidate them as well as eliminated subsidies to some of these corporations who definitely do not need it. In addition, many federal employees can take a pay cut and/or pay more for their benefits. Government employees have had it made for the longest while employees of private industries have yet to catch up with them.