The Future of NOAA and the National Weather Service, Part II

Before reading Part II, I hope that you will take the time to read Part I. Accurate and timely weather forecasting and storm warnings (ask the people of southern Appalachia!) are vital to the safety and prosperity of our nation. 

As I was reading Ryan's op-ed in yesterday's New York Times I was surprised, even shocked, by some of the reader comments. So, I decided to take those comments and clarify some of the issues brought up by the Times' readers. These topics are in no order:

Forecast Accuracy

NOAA is not the most accurate source of weather forecasts or even storm warnings. You can verify this for yourself by going to Forecast Advisor and enter your Zip Code (see below, highlighted in red).

Yes, there are many weather apps that aren't worth a darn. But, I would check out the ones that consistently provide consistently superior forecasts for your location. 

Specialized Forecasting

While NWS should provide generalized marine forecasts (that is part of its mandate), ask yourself about "commercial shipping interests." Why should the National Weather Service provide service to those? Isn't that corporate welfare? There are excellent commercial weather companies that specialize in marine weather and using weather for ship routing. Given a $36 trillion deficit, why should you and I pay taxes for that type of specialized service?

As to "cutting NOAA," no one in the Biden or future Trump administrations, to my knowledge, has proposed that. Trump has explicitly said he disavows the Heritage Foundation's suggestion to dismantle NOAA.

Tornado Warnings

National Weather Service tornado warnings are far less accurate than they were 15 years ago. You don't have to take my word for it, look at the Department of Commerce's own accuracy statistics here. From 2007 to 2012, the NWS routinely reached its accuracy goal of 73%. Since, the accuracy goal has not been reached even once. Companies like AccuWeather's business group routinely provide more accurate tornado warnings for their clients than the NWS. That is not to argue for privatizing tornado warning but it does tell us the NWS can and must do better!

America's Place in Science

I couldn't agree more that America is on the wrong track with regard to the sciences. It is a valid and serious concern. 

But, the last time I checked, Democrat Joe Biden is the current president. During his first two years, he had a majority in both the U.S. House and Senate. Why blame the GOP? President Obama was in office when some of these problems began (see "tornado warnings") and he also had control of both houses of Congress. It's ridiculous to blame the Republicans -- both parties are guilty, especially since President Trump's excellent choice for head of NOAA wasn't given a confirmation vote and had to withdraw his nomination due to health reasons. Had he been confirmed and done poorly, that would be one thing, but he never had a chance -- a huge lost opportunity for America.

Privatizing the NWS

Other than Heritage, no one, not ever, not once has proposed privatizing America's National Weather Service. Never. 

This topic has become a sore point with me because of the "misinformation" about it. Please don't mention the "Santorum Bill" as it strengthened the NWS by focusing it on forecasts and warnings of extreme weather and services for the public-at-large. You can read the bill's text, here. 

The push to pass the Santorum Bill was twenty years ago and things have changed considerably since. The NWS of the early 2000's was dabbling in providing services to electric utilities and a number of other industries, which was an explicit violation of existing government policy. Specialized forecasts for business should be the purview of commercial meteorology. 

Climate Change Advocacy

Unfortunately, it is true that NOAA engages in climate advocacy. Its "Billion Dollar Disasters" is pure propaganda. Here is one link to criticism of NOAA's advocacy, I can provide many others. Providing eight-figure grants to non-profits for "climate change education" is not science, it is advocacy. 

Please leave the advocacy to Climate Central and others, NOAA.

The Fifth Risk

I was surprised how often that book was citied by the commenters and, in every case, it was cited incorrectly. I was personally involved in this, so let me explain. 

In trying to explain the importance of government, author Michael Lewis decided to cover the horrific Joplin Tornado of May 22, 2011. In his original wording Lewis wrote, "Where was AccuWeather when the F-5 tornado was striking Joplin?" implying that the NWS correctly warned of the tornado and AccuWeather did not. That was absolutely backward. The NWS completely botched the warnings of the Joplin Tornado while AccuWeather's storm warning group (I was leading the group in 2011) did a stellar job which received high praise from our clients for saving the lives of their employees and allowed enough time for equipment to be moved out of the way. The tornado killed 161. 

When I (and others) brought this major error to Lewis' attention, instead of owning up, he changed the wording to ask, "If AccuWeather knew what was going to happen, why didn't they call the National Weather Service?" I had always had a high opinion of Mr. Lewis and I had read two of his books. If he had done any independent research (I have reason to believe people at NOAA were whispering in his ear), he would have found that tornado situations evolve in seconds and minutes (unlike hurricanes which unfold over days). We had no way to know in advance the NWS going to completely botch the warning, especially since it was meteorologically a straightforward situation. It is the NWS's job to serve the public and private sector meteorologists to serve specialized businesses. That afternoon -- with severe thunderstorms and tornadoes from Minnesota to Oklahoma -- we were far too busy to pay attention to what the NWS was doing. 

In addition, Lewis made no attempt to interview or receive a comment from AccuWeather's Wichita storm warning group. For reasons unknown, Mr. Lewis wanted to do a hatchet job on AccuWeather but he ended up merely hurting his own credibility. 

Summing Up

I don't want to restrict the comments and questions to New York Times readers. If you have questions or a comment, please leave it in the comments area below and I will answer. 

Part III discusses the essential need for a National Disaster Review Board.