Senate bill proposes centralizing NWS forecasts in six regional offices

[skbl17 188]

Here's the article from the Washington Post.

 

I'm not too keen on centralized forecasting. The U.S. is made up of dozens of microclimates, each of which affect local weather based on local conditions, elevation, and prevailing wind patterns. I have a bad feeling that centralized forecasting operations will result in bad data because Central Forecast Office A's forecasters won't take into account the microclimate in Far-Flung-City C, resulting in poorer forecasts.

 

Besides, we already have a centralized forecasting unit that pumps out forecasts, the NWS's Weather Prediction Center, or WPC. Under the current setup, the WPC pumps out national forecasts, but the meteorologist-in-charge (MIC) at the local WFO can tweak the forecast to suit local climatological and mesoscale conditions. This bill would essentially take that ability away from the WFO, while partially decentralizing the WPC.

 

This wouldn't affect the radars, so the hundreds of TV and radio stations that rely on NWS radar data would be unaffected.

[ns8401 846]

Here's the article from the Washington Post.

 

I'm not too keen on centralized forecasting. The U.S. is made up of dozens of microclimates, each of which affect local weather based on local conditions, elevation, and prevailing wind patterns. I have a bad feeling that centralized forecasting operations will result in bad data because Central Forecast Office A's forecasters won't take into account the microclimate in Far-Flung-City C, resulting in poorer forecasts.

 

Besides, we already have a centralized forecasting unit that pumps out forecasts, the NWS'sWeather Prediction Center, or WPC. Under the current setup, the WPC pumps out national forecasts, but the meteorologist-in-charge (MIC) at the local WFO can tweak the forecast to suit local climatological and mesoscale conditions. This bill would essentially take that ability away from the WFO, while partially decentralizing the WPC.

 

This wouldn't affect the radars, so the hundreds of TV and radio stations that rely on NWS radar data would be unaffected.

At the same time it saves money. It's not like all the microclimates are a local forecast office secret either... We have the technology by now to accurately forecast on a wider scale. The national outlooks generally prove that.

[Mrtraveler01 737]

 

Here's the article from the Washington Post.

 

I'm not too keen on centralized forecasting. The U.S. is made up of dozens of microclimates, each of which affect local weather based on local conditions, elevation, and prevailing wind patterns. I have a bad feeling that centralized forecasting operations will result in bad data because Central Forecast Office A's forecasters won't take into account the microclimate in Far-Flung-City C, resulting in poorer forecasts.

 

Besides, we already have a centralized forecasting unit that pumps out forecasts, the NWS'sWeather Prediction Center, or WPC. Under the current setup, the WPC pumps out national forecasts, but the meteorologist-in-charge (MIC) at the local WFO can tweak the forecast to suit local climatological and mesoscale conditions. This bill would essentially take that ability away from the WFO, while partially decentralizing the WPC.

 

This wouldn't affect the radars, so the hundreds of TV and radio stations that rely on NWS radar data would be unaffected.

 

The NWS has been a political target in the past, guess I shouldn't be shocked that's the case again now.

 

But anyone is foolish to think that the quality of work will not get degraded if it was consolidated.

[MidwestTV 1173]

As a meteorology student, this is highly upsetting. I think it's an incredibly stupid idea.

[ns8401 846]

As a meteorology student, this is highly upsetting. I think it's an incredibly stupid idea.

But why? They'd assign people to each smaller area...

[Big Country News 435]

 

But why? They'd assign people to each smaller area...

 

They'd be wasting money by boosting staff in a single office. Once a tornado happens, the NWS has to send out teams to evaluate, and the closer and more familiar you are with the area helps determine what happened.

[ns8401 846]

They'd be wasting money by boosting staff in a single office. Once a tornado happens, the NWS has to send out teams to evaluate, and the closer and more familiar you are with the area helps determine what happened.

It's consolidation... You move the guys from the local offices to a regional office and have dedicated regional teams to evaluate damage... Not hard to evaluate damage and familiarity isn't that important. You also get one light/water/heat bill instead of 50. Big savings right there.

 

We have a 65 or 70 year old model for doing things in this country. It's holding us back.

[skbl17 188]

 

It's consolidation... You move the guys from the local offices to a regional office and have dedicated regional teams to evaluate damage... Not hard to evaluate damage and familiarity isn't that important. You also get one light/water/heat bill instead of 50. Big savings right there.

 

We have a 65 or 70 year old model for doing things in this country. It's holding us back.

 

Well, none of the 122 weather forecast offices would be closed under this bill, so there would still be 122 utility bills.

 

Also, I don't think the "65 or 70 year old model" the NWS uses is "holding us back". Every NWS WFO is on social media, and they use geotagged Twitter posts in addition to the current spotter-based model of gathering reports. The alerting system was modernized back in 2007 when the NWS moved to the modern CAP-based system they currently use.

[toxictwister00 25]

 

It's consolidation... You move the guys from the local offices to a regional office and have dedicated regional teams to evaluate damage... Not hard to evaluate damage and familiarity isn't that important. You also get one light/water/heat bill instead of 50. Big savings right there.

 

We have a 65 or 70 year old model for doing things in this country. It's holding us back.

 

I really don't see how we're saving money if it clearly states in the WP article that this solution would be neutral, meaning no jobs would be lost or gained nor would any of the 122 local offices be closed. Either we're not saving money by basically keeping things for the most part as they are or we're saving money by laying off meteorologists and closing offices. They can't have it both ways. Also that excuse about doing this measure to have extra money to invest in better technology and improve forecast accuracy is a load of bull. They have been trying to gut the NWS for years, they don't give a flying duck about trying to invest in improving technology for weather forecasting/accuracy.

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

It's consolidation... You move the guys from the local offices to a regional office and have dedicated regional teams to evaluate damage... Not hard to evaluate damage and familiarity isn't that important. You also get one light/water/heat bill instead of 50. Big savings right there.

 

We have a 65 or 70 year old model for doing things in this country. It's holding us back.

 

The issue is with that of forecasting itself. As OP said:

 

 

The U.S. is made up of dozens of microclimates, each of which affect local weather based on local conditions, elevation, and prevailing wind patterns. I have a bad feeling that centralized forecasting operations will result in bad data because Central Forecast Office A's forecasters won't take into account the microclimate in Far-Flung-City C, resulting in poorer forecasts.

I had a class that made us participate in the Weather Challenge from the NWS, where you sign up and you compete with people from all around the nation to forecast for a set city for two weeks. Often times our forecasts would be terrible and we would have to spend time trying to think what might have happened that made the forecast so off. Most of the time, it was because we didn't take into consideration some features of the region our forecast city was in.

 

Basically, f you're in Dallas and have lived in Dallas most of your life/several years, it's going to be easier for you to forecast for Dallas than it would be for Des Moines.

[24994J 5269]

The issue is with that of forecasting itself. As OP said:

 

 

I had a class that made us participate in the Weather Challenge from the NWS, where you sign up and you compete with people from all around the nation to forecast for a set city for two weeks.

 

You did the challenge? I did the challenge, too!

[ns8401 846]

The issue is with that of forecasting itself. As OP said:

 

 

I had a class that made us participate in the Weather Challenge from the NWS, where you sign up and you compete with people from all around the nation to forecast for a set city for two weeks. Often times our forecasts would be terrible and we would have to spend time trying to think what might have happened that made the forecast so off. Most of the time, it was because we didn't take into consideration some features of the region our forecast city was in.

 

Basically, f you're in Dallas and have lived in Dallas most of your life/several years, it's going to be easier for you to forecast for Dallas than it would be for Des Moines.

The people that wrote the challenge would be forecasting the Regions... Not some random folks.... It seems like you are assuming the folks forecasting the weather keep the microclimates a local secret... If you know about the microclimate or have a description your job would be easier...

 

Plus there's all the non local stuff coming out of SPC these days... I'm gonna be honest... NWS and weather forecasting in general is a best guess thing mostly...

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

The people that wrote the challenge would be forecasting the Regions... Not some random folks.... It seems like you are assuming the folks forecasting the weather keep the microclimates a local secret... If you know about the microclimate or have a description your job would be easier...

 

Plus there's all the non local stuff coming out of SPC these days... I'm gonna be honest... NWS and weather forecasting in general is a best guess thing mostly...

 

what?

[ns8401 846]

what?

Ok... 1) forecasting a microclimate only requires having a written description. Since this is supposedly job neutral they are probably moving a bunch of people who would know the microclimates anyways.

 

2) Weather is one of those "I can always be wrong but that's ok" kind of jobs. The NWS offices are spotty at best when it comes to getting it right.

 

3) The article only referenced the Meteorologist union as an opposition to this plan. I've got to discount them a little because they are almost assuredly overstating the risks because they feel their jobs are on the line.

 

4) Advances in computer technology make it easier to run a skeleton crew at each WFO and hub the main operations into regions. It's not like the current system is a wonder of efficiency like it may have been in 1950. NWS is a mess. It's bloated, slow, aging and worst of all won't admit it if there is a serious warning error... They missed a tornado signature for example. That happened last year near Grand Rapids... Clear as day on the radar... The head for that office issued an excuse of a statement to cover for the people who made the mistake. Then a similar thing happened with flooding here in the Detroit area last August and they were slow to issue warnings. Heck when there is a warning for a storm the weather radio goes through its normal cycle usually so getting info is difficult. 20 years ago things were better but now from what I've seen the agency is a joke. Having every weather radio station have a different method of handling severe weather and truncation is emblematic of how bad it is and how disjointed they've become.

 

The Chicago office seems to be one of the better ones that I've seen. It's always on top of truncation at the drop of a hat and the forecasts are decent.

[skbl17 188]

To be fair, I don't think it's the NWSEO (the "Meteorologist's union" in question) that is the only one in opposition to this plan. Some Republicans also disapprove of this bill, and I think the list will only grow.

 

Back in 2005, Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum (yes, that Rick Santorum) introduced a bill - the National Weather Service Duties Act - that would have stripped the NWS of most of its non-warning duties, citing "the NWS's unprecedented control over the weather industry, to the detriment of the private sector". Fortunately, his bill got no support, was widely derided (and after Hurricane Katrina, condemned) by emergency managers, other members of Congress, storm spotters, meteorologists' unions, and some TV meteorologists, and eventually died in committee. Turns out, AccuWeather was one of his biggest donors and is based in Pennsylvania.

 

To see the talk of NWS consolidation suddenly spring up without precursors or warning seems so odd. None of the senators in question campaigned on the promise to gut/consolidate/privatize the National Weather Service; this bill seems like it came completely out of left field. It really does feel like a solution in search of a problem.

 

Today, the WaPo published another article on NWS consolidation. It turns out that Sen. Thune's proposal actually evolved out of a report from the National Academy of Sciences, and that the emergency managers have already come out in opposition. Some TV meteorologists also oppose the Thune plan, such as Dan Satterfield (WBOC), Don Paul (WIVB), Irene Sans, and Terran Kirksey (WJTV), but others (like WVIT's Ryan Hanrahan) see merit in Sen. Thune's ideas. In fact, Thune himself says that the bill is only intended to be a "conversation starter".

 

Sen. Bill Nelson - the Florida senator everyone forgets exists because of Rubio's presence - is open to compromise. I wonder what he has in mind.

[MidwestTV 1173]

 

Ok... 1) forecasting a microclimate only requires having a written description. Since this is supposedly job neutral they are probably moving a bunch of people who would know the microclimates anyways.

 

2) Weather is one of those "I can always be wrong but that's ok" kind of jobs. The NWS offices are spotty at best when it comes to getting it right.

 

3) The article only referenced the Meteorologist union as an opposition to this plan. I've got to discount them a little because they are almost assuredly overstating the risks because they feel their jobs are on the line.

 

4) Advances in computer technology make it easier to run a skeleton crew at each WFO and hub the main operations into regions. It's not like the current system is a wonder of efficiency like it may have been in 1950. NWS is a mess. It's bloated, slow, aging and worst of all won't admit it if there is a serious warning error... They missed a tornado signature for example. That happened last year near Grand Rapids... Clear as day on the radar... The head for that office issued an excuse of a statement to cover for the people who made the mistake. Then a similar thing happened with flooding here in the Detroit area last August and they were slow to issue warnings. Heck when there is a warning for a storm the weather radio goes through its normal cycle usually so getting info is difficult. 20 years ago things were better but now from what I've seen the agency is a joke. Having every weather radio station have a different method of handling severe weather and truncation is emblematic of how bad it is and how disjointed they've become.

 

The Chicago office seems to be one of the better ones that I've seen. It's always on top of truncation at the drop of a hat and the forecasts are decent.

 

Do you work in meteorology? Have you been educated in it in any way? I disagree with you, but I'm not going to get into that and start an argument.

[ns8401 846]

 

Do you work in meteorology? Have you been educated in it in any way? I disagree with you, but I'm not going to get into that and start an argument.

 

I don't have any formal education but considering I saw the hook echo and the Tornado hit exactly where I saw the echo on radar and they missed it and didn't throw a warning out I'd say I win.

 

They said the signature was cluttered on the radar when it wasn't at all. It was very well defined. I've been watching and studying weather for a long time... I may not work in it but I can read a radar. That they couldn't admit they goofed and offer to never let it happen again said something about the character of the people in that weather office. The NWS has some problems like any entity. It's the "it wasn't our fault and we did nothing wrong" that scares me. The same thing with the flooding. Weather is a very inexact science but if you miss something like that on radar its pretty low to avoid responsibility.

 

I've long thought weather and economics were about equivalent. You can be wrong more than in other jobs and still have a job at the end of the day.

 

You're welcome to send me a message if you want.

[10Viewer 319]

The local WFO offices often have a great presence and relationship with the communities they serve. I would be against any proposal, now or in the future, to make cuts at the NWS.

 

I'm amazed at the critics of the NWS and how they take for granted the essential mission of the NWS, which it does very well. The NWS has come a long way even from the early 1990's when they were still using 1950s era equipment.

[TheRolyPoly 1843]

I love the NWS. I don't know why the senate would do this, but this would be a serious danger to local communities if this was done.