Update: Senator Harry Reid laments the loss of the “Cowboy Poetry Festival” due to federal budget cuts. Seems that there is indeed some fat to be cut from the proposed $3.7 trillion budget.
The National Weather Service Employees Organization needs your help to protect against the draconian budget cuts suggested by the House for the rest of FY11. From the Member News website:
(March 7, 2011) The Senate Appropriations Committee has released a proposed alternative to HR 1 that would make a $110 million reduction to NOAA operations for the remainder of the fiscal year, rather than the $454 reduction approved by the House. Of the $110 million cut, $104 million was from earmarks that are no longer funded. This effectively only cuts the NOAA ORF budget by $6 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee justified the higher funding levels for NOAA stating in their March 4 press release, “The House cuts an additional $340 million which would threaten critical weather forecasts and warnings.”
The sample form letter to Boehner and Cantor follows:
Dear Mr. Speaker (for Speaker John Boehner) OR
Dear Mr. Cantor (for Rep. Eric Cantor)
I am writing to ask you to support the Senate’s proposal for NOAA’s budget. This proposal will help NOAA and the National Weather Service continue the mission of saving lives and property.
The Senate’s proposal includes responsible funding levels in stark contrast to the draconian cuts included in HR1. HR1 would have resulted in the following impacts on the National Weather Service:
- Reduced staffing at Weather Forecast Offices and River Forecast Centers would result in incomplete forecast production which could prove disastrous in a significant weather event. Even in the best of cases, it will still mean incomplete forecast production at WFOs that have major product workloads for aviation, marine, tropical and public services.
- This is going to have a negative impact on the economy and on almost every aspect of our daily lives. There will be a large scale economic impact on aviation, agriculture, and the cost shipping food and other products.
- Service backup of 24 Weather Forecasting Offices has never been tested and runs a very significant risk of a missed tornado, flood or severe weather warning. It is risking lives at the onset of both tornadoes and hurricane season. This is also doubling the area of responsibility for operations and adds the risk of degraded service delivery.
- The National Hurricane Center is not immune to these cuts as furloughs and staffing cuts will add strain to the program. The Hurricane Hunter Jet, which provides lifesaving data and helps determine a hurricane’s path, could also be eliminated.
- Information that is vital for weather modeling and accurate tornado watches and warnings will be reduced and in some cases lost. Reduced upper air observations currently made twice a day could be reduced to once every other day. Buoy and surface weather observations, the backbone of most of the weather and warning systems, may be temporarily or permanently discontinued.
Recent advances in aviation weather forecasting have resulted in as much as a 50 percent reduction in weather related flight delays. The Senate’s proposal for funding will help progressive programs such as these continue and may, in turn, prove beneficial to strengthening the economy.
For the safety of our citizens, the protection of property, and the large scale economic impact on aviation, agriculture, and commerce, I am asking you to vote in support the Senate’s proposal for NOAA’s budget.
Sincerely,
——-
Bill Hopkins, the NWS Employees Organization vice president predicts lives will be affected and lost because of the budget cuts. From KSAT12 ABC in San Antonio:
Bill Hopkins, vice president of the NWS Employees Organization, said the public may be in real danger a House bill is passed that would slash The National Weather Service’s budget by $126 million.”It could potentially lead to a loss of lives, not necessarily in San Antonio, but it could in other parts of the county,” Hopkins said.Local NWS offices would likely deal with rolling closures and furloughs, leaving the Corpus Christi NWS office to take over issuing warnings for the San Antonio area.”Not only will they be watching your area, but they will also be watching their area, and there will be no increase in personnel to do this,” Hopkins said.The national NWS office said President Obama has opposed to such harsh cuts. Hopkins said the cuts would significantly affect those along the Gulf Coast.”The National Hurricane Center would be reduced to 32 hours a week,” Hopkins said.There would also be far fewer hurricane hunter flights, which are often vital parts of hurricane forecasts.According to Hopkins, large amounts of weather data would be lost.”Can you imagine flying into an airport and they lose all their surface data? There’s really drastic impacts in this cut,” Hopkins said.
Why not turn most of the forcasting over to the private sector. All TV markets have at least one, and often several stations who have licensed meteorologists. Why not arrange to have their forcasts be part of the national forcast? Most would fall all over themselves to be the “official” forcast. Maybe we could even get them to pay for the privilege!
Let the airlines run and pay for the aviation forcasts. They have a vested interest in getting it right. Why does the government need to pay for it?
NOAA/NWS is one of the few government organizations that actually pays for itself in economic benefits. E.g.:
http://radiometrics.com/lazo_bams09.pdf
Singling out a very tiny part of the federal budget because some of you have long-standing biases against all atmospheric scientists is neither the logical nor beneficial from an economic standpoint.
@E.A.
You do realize that report on the economic benefit of the NOAA was a study paid for, at least in part, by the NOAA?
Also the values they arrive at has a lot of (in their own words) ‘extrapolation’. And their is no indication that much of what people value in the forecasts they get couldn’t be provided by other sources at less cost, or that other sources (like the local ‘weather man’) couldn’t provide essentially the same forecast without relying on the NOAA/NWS.
If you have spent any time at this site you would know that their are non-NOAA forecasters that regularly make more accurate forecasts cheaper than the NOAA/NWS. That would seem to indicate that although there is some benefit to the NOAA/NWS there is still alot of fat that could be cut. And just because it is a very tiny part of the federal government doesn’t mean we should just ignore it. Remember the longest journey begins with a single step.
Getting upset because of your bias for all atmospheric scientists is neither the logical nor beneficial from an economic standpoint.
>for, at least in part, by the NOAA?
NCAR is supported mainly by the NSF, not NOAA. In 2010, NOAA funded 3% of the entire NCAR budget:
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/planning/staff_fund.pdf
None of the authors work for NOAA either. Implying that these scientists altered their research to support a 3% budget portion NOAA is frankly BS….and akin to slander.
>If you have spent any time at this site you would know that their are non-NOAA forecasters that regularly make more accurate forecasts cheaper than the NOAA/NWS.
Really? Show me the proof. Hearsay doesn’t count. And how are they making these forecasts without using the entire NOAA data, models, observations, and forecast discussion issued by every NWS office?
I am no fan of the NOAA bureaucracy. It is highly inefficient and probably overloaded. But as a conservative voter, I believe that the gathering, assimilating, and utilizing data for weather forecasts is one of the few roles that the federal government should be taking since it requires a national/international data system that operates 24/7. That data system includes, not only the weather spotters who have posted here and weather balloons, but thousands of surface observing stations (of variable quality), hundreds of radars, ship and aircraft observing systems, and an array of valuable satellites among others. Pulling all of those data together and making forecasts on a regular basis is a critical part of our national security. Air travel, shipping, commuting, fishing, agriculture, energy use, national defense, and our daily lives are all more efficient, safe, and predictable because of it. Sure, the forecasting is not perfect and mistakes are made, but the NWS plays a vital role in our country’s infrastructure and continually improves its forecasts despite the difficulties in making advances on the asymptote of the skill score curve. I would contend that we have now is better, especially on the extended forecasts, than what we had a decade ago.
We are fortunate to have that national infrastructure and a private sector that can utilize that database to make custom or alternative forecasts. The world is a big place and weather operates at many scales, so there is need for both types of forecasts. But we need that infrastructure maintained and updated if we want to retain the benefits it has provided.
That said, NOAA could cut some fat from its budget and staff, and find more efficient ways to spend its money. However, Congress is not really addressing the biggest budget problem, which is the entitlement sector. No advancement in balancing the budget will be more than shooting a rhino with a bb gun until entitlements are cut and some regulations eased to get the country operating like America should be.
Wow, there are some seriously stupid people that are posting. Let me ask you these questions. If we shut down the NWS, who is going to pay for maintaining and operating the upper air sites? Who is going to maintain the surface observing sites? Who is going to maintain the radar sites? Who is going the maintain and operate the super computers needed to generate the computer models? Do you actually think private industry wants to do that? There is no profit in maintaining any of this and yet they can not generate forecasts without the data. Next, who is going to pay for a forecast, weather conditions, warnings, etc? Do you actually think private industry wants to issue warnings and possibly face lawsuits if they miss a storm that kills people?
Look at who uses NWS forecasts? The agricultural community, cities and state agencies, the aviation industry, the marine industry, and so on. When your city plows your streets, they rely on NWS forecasts to determine if plowing will be needed. Many cities do not plow if less than an X amount of snow falls. If they dont have accurate forecasts, they may waste money plowing, which in turn raises your property tax. Ask most city managers and you will find out that NWS forecasts have saved them millions each year, which is YOUR money. Next ask the the agricultural communities in the south and west, where you get most of your fruits and vegetables, how critical accurate temperature forecasts are? If a freeze occurs and they did not have accurate forecasts, their entire crop could be wiped out, which means higher food costs, which then comes out of your pocketbook. How about transporting goods across the country? If the trucking industry is aware of potentially dangerous weather such as winter storms, are expected along the route, they can make changes to prevent downtime, which saves money, and thus saves you money when you shop. Ask the construction industry how important accuarate forecasts are and how much money it saves them, which again means lower costs for consumers.
Prior to the NWS, several thousand people died a year from tornadoes and hurricanes each year. That was when the population was less than half of what it currently is now. After the NWS started issuing warnings, the amount of deaths have drop to less than one tenth of what they use to be.
The energy community uses NWS forecasts to control energy costs by diverting where it is needed most and thus prevent wasting energy, which in turn saves money for consumers in the form of electricity and heating costs.
The idiots posting have no clue how much the NWS actually saves consumers each year. But again most Americans are not very bright, which is quite obvious by most of the previous posts.
>NCAR is supported mainly by the NSF, not NOAA. In 2010, NOAA funded 3% of the entire NCAR budget:
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/planning/staff_fund.pdf
None of the authors work for NOAA either. Implying that these scientists altered their research to support a 3% budget portion NOAA is frankly BS….and akin to slander.
Did I say that they altered their research in anyway…and accusing me of such is akin to slander. I just point out that the study was partially funded by NOAA.
>Really? Show me the proof. Hearsay doesn’t count. And how are they making these forecasts without using the entire NOAA data, models, observations, and forecast discussion issued by every NWS office?
Yes really. And did I say they didn’t use NOAA collected data? Or is that just your second statement akin to slander?
Let the NOAA collect data, I have no problem with that. Then they can sell that data to people who have a use for it. Heck they might even be able to turn a profit for the government.
David, you seem to not understand economics. If there is value in the data then people will pay to have it collected.
If people only had a clue about what EXACTLY NOAA does they would get the rid of the whole program. The headline should read People and animals are going to continue to die if NOAA program isnt eliminated.
All NOAA is about military weather modification weapons. They spray poison on top of all of us from planes and ships,poison our oceans, to make artificial weather and worse. People need to ask the hard real questions what weather research really is and what they are paying BILLIONS for. Its killing us all. Its shame people are too dumb to even know what NOAA really is fall for the lies and propaganda. Climate services?? what does that even mean?? we already have tons of weather radars out there . Please please educate yourself people..