The Latest Journalistic Nonsense About NOAA

This was published Tuesday. 

This, published yesterday, is the first 12 paragraphs of the above. 

The full article is behind a paywall and I have been able to read only about half, but there are so many similar articles floating around the media these days that I can pretty well figure out what the rest says. 

The (strongly left-leaning) Bloomberg wants to convey the impression that weather forecasting and storm warnings are a federal government monopoly. They aren't; not even close. The article has all of the hallmarks of originating within NOAA in a desperate attempt to stave off the major changes most everyone in the field knows need be made. Note that in the first 11 paragraphs (all that are available before the paywall) there isn't a single non-NOAA source. Left-wing reporters at left-wing organizations, especially in Washington, will generally take federal agency press statements and run with them.

But NOAA has never been a monopoly or even a real leader in U.S. weather science. 

AccuWeather's Headquarters, one of America's commercial weather companies

Did you know the first tornado warning was by a television station in Oklahoma City? The first tornado forecast and the first hurricane hunter were military. Color radar was invented by a private sector meteorologist. NOAA's weather forecasting models aren't even close to being the best in the world and the gap is widening. The NWS/NOAA forecasts for the public are well behind private sector companies.

Dr. Cliff Mass, University of Washington

You can check the weather forecast accuracy for your Zip Code of various forecasting organizations here. I'll bet the NWS/NOAA forecast isn't even in the top three!

Cliff Mass

FACTS: The U.S. currently isn't in the running for the lead in weather forecasting. There are far more accurate U.S. models but they are coming from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and U.S. private sector companies, not NOAA. NOAA is just gumming up the works. 

How good can computer modeling be? Here is an example of the European's AI-enhanced model via the Washington Post. 

T(ime) 1 = one day before. Red = actual landfall.

The model's forecast for the point of landfall for the recent Hurricane Milton was stunningly accurate. Beginning five days out, the model forecast landfall to occur just south of Tampa Bay and never deviated. The model is so new that we don't know whether this type of accuracy is consistent (a vital part of all types of storm forecasting). However, if it can product forecasts this good, or nearly this good, it will save tens of millions in hurricane evacuation costs while making the people in the path of hurricanes much safer (additional time to evacuate with more precision as to where evacuations should occur). 

Yes, China is a Real Threat

The article brings up the threat of China. But, we will never catch up to China if NOAA stays as it is! Everything the Chinese government does is done primarily or secondarily with that nation's military in mind. There are significant indications that China believes weather superiority is an important tool for military purposes. There have even been rumors that China, North Korea and/or Russia have tried to feed false information into our weather satellites in an attempt to cause us to make inaccurate forecasts. 

When I have written about the future of the National Weather Service and NOAA, I have left foreign military threats out of the articles. For military and other reasons, it is vital that the Trump Administration move quickly in this regard. Please go to the pink link to find out what I recommend. One item I forgot to include is that the "Weather Bureau" (my placeholder name for a federal weather service divorced from NOAA) would significantly benefit from being located far outside of the Beltway. 

There are very good reasons why State, Defense, CIA, et cetera, should be in Washington. But weather forecasting in no way benefits from Washington's hyper-politicized atmosphere (pun intended) which leads to ridiculous decisions like turning down Congress' overtures to fund vital gap-filler weather radars. 

I agree with Cliff that fast progress could be made but only if the bureaucracy and its deadwood is cleared out of the way. I hope President Trump will move quickly to divorce weather from NOAA along the lines that I have outlined. The stakes are too high for any other course of action.