February 18, 2025

NOAA Is Critically Needed But Requires Reform

The meteorological and climatology community is going through a difficult period right now, with fears about cutbacks in NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) and related agencies.

The headlines in major and minor media are scary (see below), with much of the information without factual basis (such as the suggestion of 50% cuts in personnel).


The truth is that NOAA does critical and irreplaceable work. 

It is also true NOAA has fallen seriously behind in important areas, with an inefficient bureaucracy that has impeded progress.

NOAA needs to be retained but also requires serious reform.

NOAA's Importance to the Nation

NOAA does essential work, such as collecting important weather and climate information. 

 NOAA is responsible for many weather satellites as well as the backbone surface and upper air data upon which the entire weather forecast enterprise is based.

NOAA's National Ocean Service provides valued products from tidal and ocean level information to coastal surveys and support for marine sanctuaries.  


NOAA provides critical warnings that the private sector will not produce because of legal risks.

NOAA is filled with very competent and highly educated scientists and technologists.  I have and still work with many of them.

NOAA Needs Reform

But with all its strengths, NOAA is profoundly in need of serious reform and improvement.

Few NOAA products are as important as numerical weather prediction, but unfortunately, NOAA global prediction now greatly lags behind others in forecast skill and reliability (NOAA is now in fourth place).


National Weather Service forecasts (produced by local offices) are generally less skillful than the WeatherChannel, Apple, and leading private sector firms.

NOAA is well behind the European Center and private firms in using cutting-edge machine-learning approaches.

NOAA computer resources for weather and climate prediction are inadequate at best, limiting progress in improving forecast skill.

National Weather Service offices have been underfunded and understaffed for decades.  NOAA management has prioritized climate efforts over weather prediction for a long time.

And NOAA is an inefficient bureaucratic nightmare, with responsibilities divided among too many offices and individuals, with a lack of responsibility within one individual or group.  Too many folks in middle management.    The buck stops nowhere.

I could write volumes about NOAA deficiencies...and in fact, I have written two papers on the topic, testified in Congress on this issue, and served on several advisory committees.  

The dominant attention given to climate change work should give way to a more balanced research portfolio including ocean pollution, extreme weather, weather and ocean prediction, wildfire meteorology, and other important areas.

Finally,  NOAA is spending a lot of money on ineffective and divisive DEI and Social Justice activities that have little to do with its mission.


What The New Administration Needs to Do

Before starting any surgery, the new administration needs to understand the problems and strengths of the organization.  

NOAA needs to appraise what NOAA is doing well and where it lags.  Where reorganization is required and where its mission needs clarification.


There is no doubt that major change is required.

There are many in the weather, climate, and ocean community that are ready to advise, including the American Meteorological Society and those in the general community.  

We know what is wrong.  We know which NOAA closets have skeletons.   We know the steps needed to catch up in weather prediction.   DOGE needs to talk to us.

With strong leadership, a reorganized NOAA would provide the nation with the best environmental guidance in the world.




53 comments:

  1. DOGE is not qualified to audit/slash funds...period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me more. Could you count loaves of bread at a grocery store without any prior training in stocking or inventory?

      Delete
    2. Count? Yes. Know how much inventory is necessary? Of course not. I don’t have any prior experience in the field, nor working at that grocery store. I do not know more about that store’s needs than that store itself.

      Musk knows jack shit about the weather and how much more the US is vulnerable to severe weather (hint: we rank #1 in severe weather)

      Delete
  2. Way too rational and thought out for the current administration, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confusing comment - what you perceive as rational might appear irrational to others. Can you add some data to support your claim?

      Delete
  3. Reasoned explanation of why NOAA is needed, and how to get back to an atmospheric research and prediction agency.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “ Before starting any surgery, the new administration needs to understand the problems and strengths of the organization.”

    There is no evidence that the current Administration is interested in views other than their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should NOAA exist? We've already heard that it's duplicative in the public sector and the private sector. Any liability concerns that would prevent private companies from providing a similar or better product could be addressed with legislation. This idea that government agencies should be permanent once established is on its face, really questionable.

      Delete
    2. No one said they should be permanent, but if you want to get rid of one, you can go elect congress people who will do so.

      Having the executive unilaterally decide to shut down agencies funded and established by congress is not how our government works.

      NOAA exists because it does many things that don't make sense in the private sector, like studying climate change. Just because you get a weather forecast from the TV doesn't mean NOAA is unneeded.

      And no, we don't need legislation to free companies from liability - stop with the crony capitalism.

      Delete
  5. Cliff, I hope that you are given an opportunity to help reshape NOAA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are not helping Cliff...NOT helping. Your post is only encouraging the madmen. They have NO interest in fixing things and efficiency. Their mission is destruction and only destruction - surely you realize that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark....you are not correct. These are not madmen. They want what you want..an effective NOAA. I personally know the new head of NOAA...Neal Jacobs....whose vision of NOAA is one I suspect you would be comfortable with. Give this folks a chance without all the baseless name calling....cliff

      Delete
    2. Dr. Mass - It is too soon to say who is correct. Your apparent take is that these are well-meaning reformers. Since NOAA needs reform that means things are just fine. It's what you voted for last November and you're invested as many partisans are. Mark has a different take informed by the uninformed, broad cuts we have already seen. My one question is if the Trump administration ends up making a mess of NOAA will you not only write about the damage done, but also admit that your hopes and impressions were incorrect?

      Delete
    3. For those open to new ideas and reason, broad, indiscriminate cuts aren't necessarily out of bounds. Not only have these federal agencies never had significant layoffs while the private sector has endured many, but many of them have never been audited. Also, it's not hard to undo. People can be rehired. So let's stop worrying about what could happen and observe what if any detrimental outcomes occur.

      Delete
    4. Jacobs...was also cited for misconduct by an independent expert panel of the National Academy of Public Administration after the "Sharpiegate" incident in 2019. In the incident, Trump incorrectly stated Hurricane Dorian would affect Alabama, a state outside its forecasted track. NOAA, under Jacobs' leadership, later released an unsigned statement backing up Trump's incorrect claims.

      Delete
  7. DOGE hasn’t taken the time to understand anything about any of the other agencies it’s made sweeping, surprise, and indiscriminate cuts to. I’m not sure why we think they’ll approach the NOAA any differently.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "We know what is wrong. We know which NOAA closets have skeletons. We know the steps needed to catch up in weather prediction. DOGE needs to talk to us."

    I don't know who this "we" is that you think DOGE is going to take time to talk to. Maybe the "royal we", meaning you?

    Apparently you have a belief that Trump actually cares about improving things, instead of destroying things. Trump via Musk and his crack team of 20 year olds have laid off air traffic controllers, researchers on the bird flu, and those who guard the nuclear arsenal.

    DOGE is using a butcher knife to preform surgery. Why do you think you and the things you like and want are going to be the ones that will be reasonably dealt with?

    Trump and Musk no longer need you. They don't care.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rather than pretending to be a mind reader, let's deal in facts. Trump didn't lay off any air traffic controllers. The ironic thing is the Obama administration's DEI hiring policies resulting in failure to hire to targets in most control towers, hence the class action lawsuit. Secondly, just because someone has a job related to an important topic doesn't mean that person is an important employee, or the job can't be done with fewer resources. This is basic resource management. If you spend money on X, there's less money available for Y. It boggles the mind why the liberal hive mind is going with a defense of wasteful spending.

      Delete
    2. Rules, the problem is you are using sober, level-headed logic. You will find that's not how the radical left operate around here. It wont work. They thrive on drama.

      Delete
    3. JHK, you'd have to excuse us as we "radical leftists" watch the Trump administration violate the constitution to gut agencies established by Congress - and for what? Because the money was already allocated, it's not going to be "saved".

      And drama? Are you kidding? They're canning people in critical jobs, like those monitoring the current bird flu epidemic - and then bringing those same people right back, because they're not using "sober, level headed logic", they're just on a mission to gut the civil service and replace it with the old "spoils" system where crony capitalism rules.

      Delete
  9. (NOAA is now in fourth place).
    In a competition, the winning ribbon colors are
    4th: White, 3rd: Yellow, 2nd: Red, and 1st: Blue.
    Only if you take home "The Blue" will the competitors remember you were there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Trump administration has been following - actually exceeding - the Project 2025 playbook. And what does this document say about NOAA?

    "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."

    They aren't going to listen to you. I'm disappointed that 1) you haven't expressed support for your colleagues on NIH and NSF grants that are now suffering due to this administration's excesses and 2) you seem to be unaware of what's really going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred.... it is clear that the Trump administration is NOT following Project 2025, a major claim of the left. NOAA will NOT be dismantled. I suspect I know much more than you do on what is actually going on. I am talking to folks that will be in the new NOAA administration....are you?..cliff

      Delete
    2. Cliff, a caveat is that federal agencies are now subject to strict communication lock-downs. If there are NOAA employees who disagree with your contacts' optimistic assessments, they are most likely barred from saying so.

      With regard to "a more balanced research portfolio including ocean pollution, extreme weather, weather and ocean prediction, wildfire meteorology, and other important areas," my advice is, don't count on that. Based on my experience with other federal agencies over the past month, you should expect something more along the lines of the Florida model, where the words "pollution", "extreme weather", "meteorology" etc can be spoken, but the words "climate change" cannot.

      Delete
    3. Jerry... I have talked to several folks in private. This is an accurate assessment. Yes, I suspect you are right, some of the phrases will shift....with more use of terms like extreme weather. I know you don't agree, but climate change has been profoundly hyped and exaggerated. A modest problem became existential. The return to a more scientifically valid assessment of the threat should be welcome. And those criminally responsible for wildfires (like certain utilities), should not be able to use climate change as a getoutofjail card...cliff

      Delete
    4. Cliff, I agree 100% that "a more scientifically valid assessment of the threat should be welcome". But who will make the scientifically valid assessment? Scientists? The shutdowns, cancellations, firings, communications blackouts, etc. being imposed by this administration are not being made by scientists (nor their expert counterparts in other areas like CDC, USFS, and USAID) -- they are being made by Elon Musk and his team of young programmers and other ideologues. Scientists are the ones being cancelled. You may have disagreed with them, but they are scientists.

      Now I know you have also challenged some things in the media about climate science, and sometimes I've agreed with you. But Trump isn't stopping the media -- he can't -- he is stopping the scientists.

      Often we need to debate policy. For example, even if we agree on climate science, we can have a good-faith disagreement on exactly what to do about it. I appreciate the role you sometimes play in this discussion. But that's not what Trump/Musk are doing with their shutdowns, cancellations, firings, communications blackouts, etc.

      Delete
    5. Bruce...in the vast U.S academic climate/weather community I know of no evidence that anyone is fired, blacked out, or anything. And in the government community I don't see that either....papers are still being submitted on climate topics, talks being submitted on such topics. No Elon Muck to be seen..cliff

      Delete
  11. Well, we will see. I'm seeing a future where we get all our information from the Weather Channel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 95% percent of Americans get their forecasts from the Weather Channel, their smartphones, and other non-NWS forecasts TODAY.

      Delete
    2. yes but the Weather Channel uses data and models supplied by NOAA and the weather service. What I'm suggesting is that gathering basic data will be turned over to private companies like TWC.

      Delete
    3. Devotee... no, the Weather Channel runs a different model (MPAS). No private sector firm wants to take over the basic data gathering. NOAA will continue to do that no matter what.

      Delete
  12. Thanks Cliff, I come here for reasonable weather forecasts… and anything else you offer and I’m never disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You are flat out wrong Cliff. Trump does not care about anyone but himself. They only want chaos and cruelty to others. Looks like the wool has already been pulled over your eyes. It's honestly quite shocking to read this after all your recent posts on anti-Semitism. You do realize that we're currently mirroring Hitler's rise to power right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally bizarre. Trump is the most pro-Israel president on record and he is Hitler? Come on. Trump was just ELECTED in a democratic society and he is HITLER?????

      Delete
    2. Hitler was appointed chancellor after his party was democratically elected in a democratic society and as you know, Israel didn’t exist as an official state in 1933. Given how the first 30 days have gone here and how quickly Hitler consolidated power, the analogy is pretty spot on, if not beside the point of this blog post - which is “trust me Doge just wants to help.” We will see.

      Delete
    3. You need to study history more. Hitler was elected one time and then refused to allow elections after that. So he was hardly a democratic leader. Israel did not exist then but Jews were there....which he exterminated. Trump has been a great friend of Israel during his previous four years and has reversed many of the anti-Israel measures of the Biden administration. He has also spoken against the anti-Semitism on campuses, such as the UW.

      Delete
    4. Thecatguy...most of what you way is totally untrue and without basis...such as claimng the Trump said there will be no need for more elections. Truth matters...and these kinds of over the top claims are not useful. There are plenty of issues with Trump....and plenty of positive things. Objectivity is important...not demonization...cliff

      Delete
    5. Man oh man. I am sure glad NOAA/NWS is not going to be eliminated during the Trump administration and will be revitalized. I hope they get some new offices that I could apply to as an old white guy in either the state of Canada, Red-White-Blue-land (Greenland) or the Gaza Strip Riviera. Just kidding, not!

      Delete
  14. Thanks Cliff, for all your careful and considerate thoughts and being a strong ally for NOAA/NWS. I hope DOGE and the president are truly seeking out members of the weather, water and climate enterprise to identify where NOAA/NWS can streamline and optimize their operations. Having just retired from a local NWS WFO and having an intimate perspective of what frustrated me and what encouraged me from day to day, shift to shift, over 34+ years, reimagining NOAA/NWS is an extremely complicated endeavor.

    It seems anything that involves DEI or climate change is a pet peeve of the administration, yet there are increasing resources within NOAA/NWS for social science to identify how we can reach an increasingly diverse society. Should these initiatives be cut? Improved predictions of extreme weather are tied to funding for climate change. Should these initiatives be cut?

    There are already efforts, and a specific team within the NWS to reorganize the NWS, and in some creative ways. If the NOAA and NWS budgets increased, I suspect many of our pet initiatives, including more observations, computing resources, AI, adequate staffing and improved weather predictions would be realized, even with some areas of disfunction within NOAA/NWS. Yet, DOGE and the president are proposing reforms that are really staff and budget cuts.

    As I said earlier, this is a very complicated issue that requires more than a rushed, cursory analysis that DOGE and the administration seem to prefer, so they can make decisions as quickly as possible. Again, I am glad you are an advocate for NOAA/NWS and I would sure like to be a fly on the wall during these meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cliff is providing an accurate and well-reasoned analysis of NOAA and its sub-divisions (such as the NWS, OAR, NESDIS, ESRL, NMFS, PSL, etc). I have a unique perspective on this matter having been a GS-12 Recruiter for NOAA's Workforce Management Office (WFMO) in Kansas City from 2014-2016. WFMO is the Human Resources hub for NOAA, working heavily with the Silver Spring, MD Office. My role as a Recruiter was to work with hiring managers across the three and four letter agencies stated above. For the most part, the hiring process was slowed down considerably by the amount of paperwork and time it took from receipt of the RPA (Request for Personnel Action) to the actual selection of the candidate triggering the onboarding process. Complicating matters, we were required to adhere to veterans preference (VP) and diversity guidelines in hiring, meaning that the experience and academic school work of candidates was less important than diversity and inclusion initiatives put forth by DOC (Department of Commerce). The actual GS-7/9/11 workers at WFMO and many of the field offices were hard workers and dedicated to the mission. Just within WFMO Kansas City, we had a GS-13 (my boss) and two GS-14's and two more GS-15's over them. The higher you rose in paid grade level, on the whole, the less impactful work you contributed. The more these employees traveled and worked on policy issues, the more bureaucratic and procedural everything became once they returned to the office. I remember reaching out to Cliff to help place some of his UW graduates into these 1340 positions. Some of these bright young minds were passed over due to veterans preference and diversity protocols institued by DOC. Since I left the government, many veteran meteorologists have retired (Coleman, Albright, Buehner) from the ranks of the Seattle NWS Field Office. With their departure went decades of experience for forecasting this local area. Area Forecast Discussions (AFD's) were released on-time and were very accurate. Now, they have been replaced by young meteorologists who move to this area and lack serious knowledge of our local terrain features and rely solely on various models without combining it with specialized knowledge the veterans listed above held. AFD's out of the Seattle Office are now fairly generic and are released most days around 3:45pm to as late as 4:50pm. Back in the day it was usually around 2:30pm and not much later than 3:00pm. Be that as it may, there is too much bureaucracy within NOAA and its field offices. This places an urgent need for prudent trimming within NOAA to include its HR offices (WFMO) and the field offices it supports (NWS, OAR, NESDIS, ESRL, NMFS, PSL). The SPC (Storm Prediction Center) and PSL (Physical Sciences Labratory) provide a much needed service. The PSL's Atmospheric River Portal is such a useful resource. The SPC saves lives. In my opine, what is needed is a streamlining of NOAA's services. This would include combining various sub-departments and consolidating services. This may necessitate the need of closing various offices and moving many larger agencies to one main location, where HR officials could collaborate more efficiently with hiring managers at these agencies (NWS, OAR, NESDIS, ESRL, NMFS, PSL) on-site, rather than remotely. Trimming higher graded policy positions (GS-14/15 and SES positions) and adding more rookie GS-5/7 to journey level GS-9/11 operational positions would only make NOAA stronger and more robust. And lastly, it would be nice to see greater funding and efforts to improve the numerical weather modeling program within NOAA. There's a lot to fix by adding, cutting, rearranging and reorienting existing assets within the department. NOAA has the capability to be a powerhouse agency once again, cutting out wasteful spending and programs and investing in personnel who literally become its lifeblood. The result will be evident in greater transparency, production, and lives saved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well thought-out reply. The only problem is, the current administration has a history of behaving in a self-aggrandizing manner. Does this align with fixing NOAA? If so, I'll be the first to stand up and say that I was wrong to not trust them. If not, I wonder if the administration's tacit supporters in this space will be able/willing to do the same.

      Delete
    2. I doubt very much any supporters will ever admit his administration did anything wrong. Unlike other politicians, Trump occupies a messiah-like position in his people's minds. My friends who support him all adamantly insist he has never made a single mistake, never overstepped, never violated a single law. These are all previously rational people. I've never witnessed anything like it in American politics.

      I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm still waiting.

      Delete
  16. Thanks Cliff, and for others that provide informative comments from personal experience – Thanks!
    For the hysterical types, I remember when John Kennedy was campaigning for office there were folks predicting the Catholic Pope would be running the country if JFK was elected. Kennedy was elected and the Pope did not move into the Oval Office. This morning, I saw a list of 12 Democrats that might be head of the ticket in 2028. The Republic appears to be fine – and I hope to be here too.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If Trump called you and asked you about what needs to be done with NOAA would you take the call?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cliff, excellent analysis. However, I do not believe the NWS can survive (let alone become best in the world) under NOAA. I believe the weather part of NOAA should be made an independent agency. Please see: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2024/12/the-future-of-noaa-and-national-weather.html While there is a comment from a NWS forecaster appended, I have received MANY private comments from within NWS and NOAA who agree that NOAA cannot manage the NWS due to both lack of interest and lack of expertise.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry Cliff! Your blog was awesome and laid out things clearly. Your responses did as well. You are more closely involved in this topic than the commentors, yet you must not believe your lying eyes according to them. It is sad and the reason the more moderate left is saying to them to shut up. People have had enough of it. Thank you for standing up against the mob that wants to silence you or have you align with their said beliefs, which to me is more Nazi like. Fall in line right? They aren't Nazi's, I know that, just easy to make comparrison like they love to do. Even though facts state the opposite for both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh and another thing. This is why we know they are full of hot air. They still talk freely about how bad Trump is on the internet. If they truly believed what they said wouldn't you think they would show more discretion. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Budd, you might also consider the possibility that they are legitimately concerned plus courageous.

      Delete
    2. I'll give you legitimately concerned, but that concern is often caused by the echo chamber they create. Not courageous. Courageous people do not act in the way they do. They think trumps and his followers are bully like, to defeat a bully is not to bully back. They might think they are being courageous, but that is because people tell them they are to help them cope without telling them their behavior is applaling.

      Delete
  21. Looks like Trump is doing to NOAA what it's been doing with the other agencies as far as layoffs are concerned. Why would you think they'd bother to do things the right way with NOAA when they haven't with other agencies? I'd love to hear a response to that.

    ReplyDelete

Please make sure your comments are civil. Name calling and personal attacks are not appropriate.

Should California Ship Water to the Pacific Northwest?

President Trump has suggested that water be transported from the Pacific Northwest to California to help fight fires and for agricultural us...