Several media stories have suggested that Project 2025 will be the blueprint for the Trump administration's termination or break up of NOAA and the National Weather Service.
I have received at least a half-dozen calls or messages asking about it. Let's soberly consider the Project 2025 recommendations without a political lens.
As many of you know, Project 2025 is a project of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. It is their recommendation to the new administration. According to President Trump, he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and does not feel bound to follow its recommendations:
Let's consider Project 2025's recommendations for NOAA.
It starts with a pretty strong statement:
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.
But when you read the specifics, the tough talk is replaced by less threatening suggestions.
This is what Project 2025 says about the National Weather Service.
Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations.
Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.2 The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. NOAA does not currently utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high-quality research and weather data. Investing in different sizes of commercial partners will increase competition while ensuring that the government solutions provided by each contract is personalized to the needs of NOAA’s weather programs
The Project 2025 folks may have a point here. Commerical forecasts (e.g., from the WeatherChannel or Accuweather or Apple weather forecasts) are generally more skillful than NWS projections. Don't believe me? Look at specific comparisons, such as those found at ForecastAdvisor.com
The NWS is in 7th place. At least it is ahead of Pirate Weather (pirates are obviously mediocre in weather forecasting). Similar statistics are found at other locations around the U.S. As a specialist in the field, I have a very good idea of why the NWS lags, including the inferior statistical combination of weather forecasts. NOAA models (except for HRRR) are generally inferior.
NOAA could greatly improve forecast skill by contracting with commercial firms for their forecasts, releasing local NOAA meteorologists to interact with local users, and ensuring local observations are well maintained. The savings in reduced local staff could be used to improve national weather prediction models (such as HRRR) and enhance observations.
A win-win situation for everyone, and it is reasonable and defendable.
Next, Project 2025 takes on the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the NOAA Environmental Satellite Service:
Review the Work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service. The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service data centers provide important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions, and are used by forecasting agencies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important issue in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Project 2025 is not calling for the termination of these important NOAA efforts but to present the implications of climate change/global warming more "neutrally".
As someone who follows this issue quite closely, I really don't think that the NHC is guilty of consistently hyping the impacts of climate change or making "adjustments" intended to support one side or the other.
But let's have some perspective here: Project 2025 is NOT recommending the end of the NHC as being claimed by some hyperventilating folks, such as the Huffington Post:
Finally, the report calls for a reduction in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and to reduce the "preponderance of its climate change research".
Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). OAR provides theoretical science, as opposed to the applied science of the National Hurricane Center. OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed withe an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat.
I will have to give Project 2025 mixed grades on this. NOAA AOR does BOTH theoretical AND applied science, which Project 2025 folks did not appreciate. AOR does some very good applied and theoretical science. I have worked with them on many projects, so I know. Furthermore, I don't think it is true that there is a "preponderance" of climate-change research that should be disbanded. Yes, a few scientists in NOAA may have gone a bit "over the top" but most are not and doing good work regarding climate change.
However, there is bloat, duplication, and ineffective spending in NOAA AOR.
Trust me, I know the locations of a lot of the skeletons in the NOAA closet.
In summary, the Project 2025 "analysis" of NOAA has to be given mixed grades (and I did not mention the sloppy writing, with numerous grammatical errors. But if you bother to read it, you will see that it is not calling for the death knell of NOAA as claimed by some media and climate activists.
NOAA Does Need Reform
Although Project 2025 has hits and misses regarding NOAA, NOAA acutely needs reform.
Major reform. Reform that will enable it to serve its mission better. Reform that will make it more effective and reduce bureaucratic bloat. Reform that may well save money.
I say this as someone who has worked with NOAA for decades. I have written several papers on NOAA's organizational problems, served on national advisory committees, and testified in Congress on these issues.
NOAA has fallen behind in weather prediction. It has failed to use commercial services when they offer better forecasts, are less expensive, or more efficient. There is a huge duplication of effort within NOAA. Large amounts of funding are wasted. There is a lack of partnerships with the University community and particularly the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In a future blog, I will lay out the details of how NOAA could be reformed and become MUCH more effective. With insightful reorganization and better management, NOAA could provide profoundly better forecasts and environmental information to the American people.
Every subject matter expert has gripes with how public money is spent in their area of expertise. Things could always be better. But I have absolutely zero faith or expectation that the anti-science, anti-expert Trump admin will engage in constructive reform here. They will tear it down to slash budgets, and appease an ever-more-disconnected-from-reality base that thinks hurricanes and wildfires are man-made.
ReplyDeleteWeather modification has come a long way since the 60s when there was a Disney video showing they could steer hurricanes away from the coast back then. You've probably already seen it but if you haven't https://youtu.be/Xw9Leq98IRU?si=fx4Fa6_OcRRkhHtS
DeleteEarlier this year, I decided the hand-wringjng over this document was getting suspiciously over the top. So I read it for myself.
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty in there with which to disagree. And there's definitely some stuff I would describe, to put it charitably, as poorly informed.
What I mostly saw, however jibes with what you saw in the NOAA/NWS sections: a distinctly non-apocalyptic, kitchen-sink, swing-for-the-fences compendium of conservative policy wonkery.
Throw in the fact that 80 percent of it has absolutely no chance of impacting the real world, and I realized just how much "news" on this topic was really using it as a boogeyman or a fund-raising lever. Nothing new under the sun, I suppose.
My main issue with this is our taxpayer funded data collection being given to commercial entities to then package and sell it back to me. So I pay twice.
ReplyDeleteThe implication here is that you make no distinction between the quality of an analysis of the data performed by NOAA personnel and the quality of an analysis of the very same data performed by a commercial weather forecasting firm.
DeleteIn other words, every analysis regardless of who performs it is fungible from a quality perspective; i.e., one analysis is as good as any other, with the result that we really are paying for the same analysis twice.
You only would pay once. Just like NASA and Space-X. NASA pays Space-X for launch...no one else. NOAA would pay a commerical entity to prepare forecasts...
DeleteExcept that you said the forecasters would be freed up for other work in the local area. That would be cost increase (paying for the forecasts and paying for local outreach) rather than a cost savings. If they go for the commercial forecasts the NWS people are out of a job.
DeleteOf course you are paying for it twice. What is Space X taking to orbit? Does Accuweather make its own weather satellites and then monitor their orbits or does the Government?
DeleteOnly paying once. NOAA still does the observations and weather satellites.
DeleteBut we taxpayers already pay for the technology (satellites etc) that these private companies then pull data from and charge back to…NOAA? That is subsidizing a private company and paying twice.
DeleteYou are not understanding. The companies will provide and charge for the forecasts, not the satellites and other observational assets. Paying once.
DeleteI think both sides are misunderstanding here. Taxpayers pay NOAA staff and assets. Then NOAA would then pay an entity to examine and prepare forcasts. We then pay that bill too. Granted there would be lower legacy costs in not paying benefits to NOAA staff but I don't see the bill staying the same or going down. TWC The Weather Channel could charge any price they want to prepare said forcasts. Privatizing rarely looks as good in reality as it does in real life. One word: Enron... Maybe this scheme might be more efficient, but NOAA is a not for profit government entity....forgot that part?
DeleteNo. I absolutely understand that Accuweather doesn’t build its own satellites, launch them and keep them on orbit. Agencies do that with our tax dollars. Accuweather just piggybacks off the government data that comes from these incredibly expensive outlays, then sells a product that you have a choose to buy if you think it’s better than NWS. But if Cliffs solution for NWS to get better is to just pay Accuweather, then we as taxpayers have paid twice, whether we want to or not. It’s like buying the mariners a new stadium, but then the city of Seattle also requires everyone to buy tickets, whether they like it or not.
DeletePlease read this carefully. NO ONE IS PAYING TWICE. The NWS bids out the forecasting side. MANY groups will compete. They are competing on best price and best forecast. The NWS will save money by reducing its staff and bureaucracy that are currently making forecasts. The private sector has proven much better than the government in so many areas.....package delivery and space launch......to name only a few. The private sector has already proven it can produce superior weather prediction. Don't you think the American people deserve the best forecasts?
DeleteThe pirates are actually great at weather prediction. The problem is they have a hard time typing with hooks for hands, so make lots of typos in their forecasts. Those parrots constantly squawking on their shoulders aren't helping either.
ReplyDeleteBased on the sum total of statements from Project 2025 and Donald Trump, their calls to "present the implications of climate change/global warming more 'neutrally'", have nothing to do with neutrality. Nobody should fool themselves about that.
ReplyDeleteJerry...there has been so much hype, exaggeration, and bad information provided by global warming activist in the press and to some degree the government that some rebalancing would be welcome. I know you don't agree with this, but I think it is true..cliff
DeleteGiven that the general point of science is to learn more, making progress by employing the "scientific method" (empirical, gathering sound information faithful to high standards) and most importantly, "testability" - there just may be room for improvement. There are a heck of a lot of agencies, more than a few overlap, and not all shine. One example (hate to harp) is the USDA and its broad-brush "drought monitor" that often aligns poorly with reality. I'm not shaking in my shoes re the Heritage Society's (whatever). All ideas should be welcome and pass or fail based on merit. Quality of science shouldn't be political. I hope Mass and others can help make improvements - there's plenty of room for better accuracy and greater efficiency.
DeleteI understand, Cliff, but I don't think the Trump administration will deliver the rebalancing that you are hoping for. As its core climate principle, Project 2025 states that the federal government has an "obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources". That is not a neutral viewpoint. It is a full-scale rejection of everything we know to be true about climate change.
DeleteAnd Cliff, how much negative hype, disinformation, and otherwise BS has the "other side" put out? You know, like denying that anything is actually happening? For decades? Complete and utter lies from people who knew differently?
DeleteSo sure, let's let the people who may have overhyped the factual situation be replaced by the people who have denied it completely and gone out of their way to slander those who look for the truth.
"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!"
Brandon....there is undoubtedly more hype and exaggeration on the "pro" side than the sceptics. And the "pro" side had the media megaphone..... not even close...
DeleteYes, the media has overhyped climate change. But p2025 isn't talking about the media, over which they have no control (yet). They're talking about gov't agencies. To the maga crowd neutrality means censorship.
ReplyDeleteNo one is talking about censorship....are you part of the "maga crowd" so you have some special insight?
DeleteHe (Trump) does have a history of demanding an official hurricane forecast be changed even though he made a mistake and included a state in a tweet that was not in the official cone of uncertainty and proceeded to add it himself with a sharpie. Once local NWS offices rebuked his mistake he went after them. Luckily guardrails worked but this time the appointments are based on loyalty with less protection for federal workers if they step out of line. Trump believes climate change is a hoax so it is not a far stretch of the imagination to put someone in charge of NOAA who believes the same and will direct the agency in the same way even if it means purging people. All we have to do is look at RFK and his goals for the HHS in regards to "scrutinizing" vaccine efficacy.
DeletePBW...you have a lot of details wrong on the hurricane situation. Trump was out of line and silly trying to mark up the hurricane map. This had NOTHING to do with the official forecasts, which were unaltered. Climate change is something completely different. Trump is on one unrealistic extreme. The Biden administration was on the other. No....climate change is not an existential threat...as claimed by Biden. I suspect all Trump can do at this point is push things towards the center...cliff
DeleteI would agree to an extent if the group/administration coming in had a focus on making the government better and more efficient using the government. This group of people does not appear to want the government to be apart of the equation at all and if they get a whiff of an opportunity to cut then I fear they will. I think the weather enterprise is full of whiffs. Unlike the space industry the private weather enterprise can stand on its own two feet, has been for some time, and it sounds like they are doing pretty well. To me using that mindset this doesn't beg the question regarding efficiency but necessity. If they do it better, why do it at all is being asked to make the decisions to save money. I would bet the answers to that question are ones many of us will not like. Private companies are better at forecasting, why have it at all in the NWS? If companies can interpret data to issue warnings/alerts on their own (which companies and people already do for paying customers), why have it at all? If better models are constructed in a private company (AI or Physics based), why have a government operated one at all? I think the same can be said for research and data collection, especially if they view it as tainted or false. In this case I fear if they view the results are false/tainted, the question becomes why invest at all. Their equations regarding cuts focus on the macro-government savings rather than the micro-government savings, meaning it is better to slice or sell an entire program rather than smooth out its edges. I think their approach is more like American Idol releasing contestants by splitting 100 people up into 4 rooms and telling 2 of the rooms its time go while the other 2 rooms are told they are safe...for now vs coaching each person to be better singers. Overall with this group/admin I think if there is a chance to make money in the private sector they will take it. For the services still warranted by a government I see them pushing it to the states to hire their own emergency operations mets or paying a company for advice. I think this is an especially greedy group of the richest people on the planet with a full mandate to restructure into a smaller federal government and will face limited pushback in the organizations themselves, with people fearing termination, and from congress just falling in line.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lewis covered this in his book The Fifth Risk. Trump tried to gift NOAA to Barry Myers of AccuWeather during his first term. A private company would be given everything the American people have built, and then we would no longer be given weather information unless we paid for it through the nose. It's part of Trump's (successful, tragically) plan to transform America from a democracy into an oligarchy.
ReplyDeleteThat claim is simply untrue and can be easily proven to be untrue. I know Barry Myers by the way....
DeleteBarry Myers was nominated for NOAA administrator, but that nomination was pulled back because of charges of sexual harassment at Acuweather. Being administrator of such an agency is hardly a gift....but a burden.
DeleteCliff, the amount of nonsense in the comments section of your thoughtful piece is extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteThe "pay twice" commenters don't seem to think that AccuWeather (and every commercial weather company) pays federal taxes. Of course they do! As taxpayers, they have as much right to obtain and use NOAA data as any other individual or entity. If they use the data to produce a superior forecast or storm warning than NOAA, so much the better.
AccuWeather produces its forecasts for a public at no charge as they are supported by advertising. If you don't want to see the ads, you can subscribe for the less-than-princely sum of $2/month.
The alarming fact is that NOAA's tornado warnings (to cite one type of storm) are LESS accurate than they were 15 years ago -- a fact NOAA does not dispute. In 2024, we saw unwarned tornadoes from literally New York to California -- a highly dangerous situation as these unwarned tornadoes are up to "strong EF-3 intensity" and are causing fatalities.
Side topic: The "Fifth Risk" and its information about the Joplin Tornado is utter nonsense. The NWS and local emergency management completely botched that tornado warning: https://tinyurl.com/4xn3zwxd
I have my own thoughts as to how to fix the NWS: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2024/12/the-future-of-noaa-and-national-weather.html I'm looking forward to reading yours, Cliff.
Happy Holidays!!
Mike
Cliff, since posting the comment above, more info has become available w/r/t Scotts Valley Tornado miss by the NWS. It -- emphatically -- highlights the issue of the poor and outdated level of training of most NWS meteorologists: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2024/12/a-posting-for-meteorologists-future-of.html
ReplyDelete