From Cliff Mass Weather Blog
cliff mass
Multiple media reports stated that “Plan 2025” will become the Trump administration's blueprint for terminating or disbanding NOAA and the National Weather Service.
I received at least six calls or messages asking about this. Let us consider the proposals for the 2025 plan calmly and without political commentary.
As we all know, Project 2025 is an initiative of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. This is their proposal to the new government. President Trump said he had nothing to do with Plan 2025 and was under no obligation to follow its recommendations:
Let's consider Project 2025's recommendations for NOAA.
It begins with a very powerful statement:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be disbanded and have many of its functions eliminated, transferred to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.
But when you read the specifics, the tough rhetoric gives way to less threatening suggestions.
This is Project 2025's description of the National Weather Service.
NWS focuses on commercial operations.
Americans rely every day on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and universities, which are produced not by the NWS but by private companies like AccuWeather. The study found that forecasts and warnings provided by private companies were more reliable than those provided by the National Weather Service. Since private companies rely on this data, the National Weather Service should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. NOAA currently does not utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-effective technologies to enable high-quality research and weather data. Investing in commercial partners of varying sizes will increase competition while ensuring that the government solutions provided by each contract are personalized to the needs of NOAA's weather program
The 2025 planners may have a point.. Commercial forecasts (for example, from WeatherChannel or Accuweather or Apple Weather Forecast) are generally more skillful than NWS forecasts. Don't believe me? View specific comparisons, such as those found at ForecastAdvisor.com
NWS ranked seventh. At least ahead pirate weather (Pirates’ weather forecast is apparently mediocre). Similar statistics exist elsewhere in the United States. NOAA models (except HRRR) are generally poor.
NOAA can greatly improve forecasting skills by contracting forecasts with commercial companies, sending local NOAA meteorologists to interact with local users, and ensuring that local observations are well maintained. Savings from reduced local staff can be used to improve national weather forecast models (such as HRRR) and enhance observations.
This is a win-win situation for everyone, and it is reasonable and tenable.
Next, Project 2025 will compete with the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and NOAA Environmental Satellite Service:
Review of the work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service. The National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service Data Center provide important public safety and commercial functions as well as academic functions and are used by forecast agencies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important topic in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally and without adjustments intended to support either side of the climate debate.
The 2025 Plan does not call for NOAA to end these important efforts, but rather to provide more visibility into the impacts of climate change/global warming.”neutral”.
As someone who follows this issue closely, I really don't think the National Health Commission is guilty of constantly hyping the effects of climate change or making “adjustments” designed to support one side or the other.
But let’s put some perspective on it: Project 2025 does not recommend ending the NHC, as some hyperventilators like the Huffington Post claim:
Finally, the report calls for reducing the size of NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and reducing “its strengths in climate change research.”
Reduce the size of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). OAR provides theoretical science, not applied science at the National Hurricane Center. Yet OAR is the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. Its climate change research merits should be dismissed. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, undersea research centers and joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed with the aim of consolidating and reducing bloat.
I have to give Project 2025 points in this regard. NOAA AOR does both theoretical and applied science, and the Project 2025 people don't appreciate that. AOR does some really good applied and theoretical science. I've worked with them on a lot of projects, so I know. Furthermore, I believe that the “advantages” of climate change research should not be eliminated. Yes, some scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may be a little “over the top,” but most scientists are not and do a great job on climate change.
However, NOAA AOR spending is bloated, duplicative, and ineffective.
Trust me, I know the location of many skeletons in the NOAA closet.
All things considered, NOAA's Project 2025 “analysis” has to be given a mixed rating (I didn't mention the sloppy writing, there are a lot of grammatical errors). But if you bother to read it, you will find that it does not require as What some in the media and climate activists claim is that the death knell has sounded for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA really needs reform
Although NOAA’s “2025 Plan” has its pros and cons, NOAA urgently needs reform.
Major reforms. Reforms will enable it to better fulfill its mission. Reforms would make it more effective and reduce bureaucratic bloat. The reforms are likely to save money.
I say this as someone who has worked at NOAA for decades. I have written several papers on NOAA organizational issues, served on the National Advisory Committee, and testified before Congress on these issues.
NOAA is lagging behind in weather forecasting. It fails to use commercial services when they offer better predictions, are cheaper, or are more efficient. There is a lot of duplication of effort within NOAA. A lot of money wasted. Lack of collaborative relationships with the university community, particularly the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In a future blog, I will detail how NOAA is reforming and becoming more effective. Through insightful reorganization and better management, NOAA can provide the American people with better forecasts and environmental information.
Relevant
