• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Misc Trumps NOAA Plans

Storm5

Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
14,116
Reaction score
26,643
Location
Birmingham Alabama
If he gets his way trump plans to cut over 600 million in NOAA funding . Is this thing on 600 million !!!!! The biggest hit would come to the satellite data division . Holy hell thats a lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
600 million is way too much. I say cut it or get new bids on building satellites if that is part of this 600 million.
 
Any administration or individual who think its a good idea to cut satellite analyses needs to get their head checked. A proposed 22% cut to satellite data is beyond absurd. Thankfully, Congress (should) block this crap...
 
Any administration or individual who think its a good idea to cut satellite analyses needs to get their head checked. A proposed 22% cut to satellite data is beyond absurd. Thankfully, Congress (should) block this crap...

I respect & hear what you are saying Webb. I am learning much from your posts. I am reading up on the NOAA budget. Seems it was cut 15% in 2001 & 2014. If I read correctly. Tired so will study up tomorrow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with the size of the NOAA cuts, especially since NOAA is a small % of the budget and quite valuable, but the group here including myself is naturally going to be biased since we follow wx so much. I realize tax cuts without spending cuts in general would be horrible for the already horrible budget deficit. So, I'll be devil's advocate for a second. Why should NOAA get a pass?

Here's an idea based on some out of the box thinking: go ahead and allow for a cut in the US NOAA budget, itself, but get other countries to make up for the cut by them contributing to help NOAA since the satellites ultimately help other countries. Think about all of the other countries who use satellite data for free even though the US built, launched, and maintains them. I'm not a UN fan but maybe do this via the UN? Is that doable? Make the UN helpful to the US for a change?
 
This could get distracting and divisive - can we wait until an actual budget is proposed before spending energy on speculation?
Just sayin'
 
While the US government bickers over whether to slash funding for NOAA, ECMWF is garnering even more support and will be pouring yet more money into building a new operations center and will be increasing computational capacity tenfold over the next several years.

And many wonder especially after reading the article at the top of this thread, why NOAA and NCEP have gotten so far behind the curve wrt weather and climate forecasting prediction... NOAA comprises a "whopping" 0.15% of the federal budget and is under the Department of Commerce, cutting funds to NOAA will do absolutely nothing to stifle the budget deficit and will effectively hurt the tens-hundreds of thousands of businesses who rely on their forecast and increase the risk of potential insured/uninsured losses, in addition to the lay off of workers. Of course, it's worth mentioning that the NWS costs the average taxpayer an "astounding" $3-4/year, a hell of a deal for all the services and invaluable, and often life saving forecasts and services they provide. The proposed cuts in funding to NOAA are likely intended to be a cheap shot at NOAA because they disagree with Trump administration's stance on climate change. smh... Luckily congress has the final say and should block this nonsense.
Yes, we need to cut spending, and aI know many may disagree it probably wouldnt be a bad idea to look towards our military as a viable option, although there are a slew of others. We spend over 600 billion dollars on our armed forces every year, a high price tag for the astounding patriotic service our men and women provide to our nation. While I am perfectly fine and more than happy with the US spending more on the military than any other nation in the world, the fact that we spend more money than the next eight countries COMBINED might be actually be a problem, and we could at the very least make some minor improvements to this figure... Although some argue that it would reduce our readiness and defense at home, even if we cut of just a fraction of 1% to the US military's budget, it would still be significantly more than what the US spends on NOAA every year.
 
If this were a pure politics forum not associated with a wx bb and this subject were to come up, would there be this much opposition to this? I have my doubts. As wx hobbyists, students, and pros, most here (including myself) are naturally not going to want anything in the budget related to wx (I don't mean climate change, which is very divisive here) to be cut at all. So, none of this opposition is surprising.

Related to CC, I will add this though. These cuts would slash money going toward spending on an organization that plans for CC related coastal flooding. As a near coastal resident who is quite aware of increased flooding on the road to the beach, I don't want that slashed at all.
 
just passing through here ... and meanwhile in Gainesville, I actually just lit a fire to burn out last night's chill that didn't go away with today's "warmth" LOL
 
If this were a pure politics forum not associated with a wx bb and this subject were to come up, would there be this much opposition to this? I have my doubts. As wx hobbyists, students, and pros, most here (including myself) are naturally not going to want anything in the budget related to wx (I don't mean climate change, which is very divisive here) to be cut at all. So, none of this opposition is surprising.

Related to CC, I will add this though. These cuts would slash money going toward spending on an organization that plans for CC related coastal flooding. As a near coastal resident who is quite aware of increased flooding on the road to the beach, I don't want that slashed at all.

Yes, I agree that there is a bit of a bias here since some (including myself) would be immediately impacted by these proposed NOAA cuts, oth, even if I wasn't interested in the weather whatsoever, I would still find it odd that the Trump Administration would think it's a good idea to slash satellite funding. Not only would such a move negatively impact us purely from a meteorological perspective, but limiting satellite funding would pose a legitimate national security risk...
 
I just found a bit of a different take from a pro met, Mike Maguire, who has been an operational meteorologist for 35 years:

"This is being distorted by the media and one side......stating that science and safety of Americans is at risk. I am an atmospheric scientist/operational meteorologist that uses NOAA data and products, every day, much of the day. I am concerned 0% that any of this will be affected. It won't. This is fake weather/climate news intentionally being interpreted to make Trump look bad..............for draining the corrupt climate scientist/science swamp.

What is at risk is the billion dollar gravy train that is funding thousands of scientists that suddenly became interested in and experts in climate science because the government was doling out unlimited money for anyone that studied human caused climate change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any comments about what this met is saying?

Regarding the proposed climate change related cuts to the organization trying to get coastal locations prepared for rising sea level due to GW (regardless of the causes), I'm still concerned that cuts here shouldn't be made based on my realization that spring tidal related flooding has increased on the road to the nearby beach. I need to study this further.
 
I just found a bit of a different take from a pro met, Mike Maguire, who has been an operational meteorologist for 35 years:

"This is being distorted by the media and one side......stating that science and safety of Americans is at risk. I am an atmospheric scientist/operational meteorologist that uses NOAA data and products, every day, much of the day. I am concerned 0% that any of this will be affected. It won't. This is fake weather/climate news intentionally being interpreted to make Trump look bad..............for draining the corrupt climate scientist/science swamp.

What is at risk is the billion dollar gravy train that is funding thousands of scientists that suddenly became interested in and experts in climate science because the government was doling out unlimited money for anyone that studied human caused climate change."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any comments about what this met is saying?

Regarding the proposed climate change related cuts to the organization trying to get coastal locations prepared for rising sea level due to GW (regardless of the causes), I'm still concerned that cuts here shouldn't be made based on my realization that spring tidal related flooding has increased on the road to the nearby beach. I need to study this further.
Politics and religion are two of three things I stay away from (the third has to do with a mother-in-law ... LOL) - so no politics or religion here - just a thought - until the deal is on the table why spend time and energy and angst? Just sayin' - but then who am I o_O
 
Lol what a massive load of misconstrewn political garbage, the dearth of any actual facts/figures in their statements speaks volumes to how much effort this meteorologist has put forth on the issue. I'm sure if the Obama administration was making these cuts, he would be singing a different tune... NOAA's budget is already constrained as is and after personally speaking to local NWS meteorologists from NWS RAH on campus at NCSU, it was very apparent that the budget was so tight that large lay-offs and/or consolidation of NWS offices is potentially imminent to account for the shortening budget, trump would only make things worse. These modifications to the NWS (as well as the SPC, NHC, etc) would have an nearly instantaneous impact on tens of thousands of businesses/commerce, local, state, and federal emergency management agencies, just to name a few. Aside from the fact that a 25% cut to satellite funding is completely unfathomable and once again not only poses a legitimate risk to our detection of meteorological hazards, but poses a national security risk, the cuts to several federal grant programs would immediately impact my way of life, research opportunities and chances of getting into graduate school or pursuing a post-doctorate degree.
 
Politics and religion are two of three things I stay away from (the third has to do with a mother-in-law ... LOL) - so no politics or religion here - just a thought - until the deal is on the table why spend time and energy and angst? Just sayin' - but then who am I o_O

Lol about the mother-in-law. I think you're smart to avoid these subjects since there is so much division in this country. I've never seen anything like it. I think the Internet (especially social media), as great as it is, is one of the primary reasons as it gives folks the freedom to say very hateful and nasty things from whatever political persuasion behind the safety of a keyboard.
 
Somebody get that 600 million, and put it towards GFS improvements! That's probably a 1/3 of what's needed to fix that POS, but it would be a start! :)
 
Somebody get that 600 million, and put it towards GFS improvements! That's probably a 1/3 of what's needed to fix that POS, but it would be a start! :)
If I get that $600 mill - I'm retiring, renovating a church in Waynesville (NC) and one in Blairsville (GA), then offering prizes here ... :cool:
 
Somebody get that 600 million, and put it towards GFS improvements! That's probably a 1/3 of what's needed to fix that POS, but it would be a start! :)

Very true. NOAA is in fact working on creating a new model. Last summer a proposal was made to introduce a project titled the "Next Generation Global Prediction system" that will institute a FV-3 core (similar to the GFDL) which would replace the Global Forecast System (GFS) by ~ 2020.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/fv3/
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscienc...-new-global-weather-model-controversy-likely/
http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsA...to-improve-global-weather-forecast-model.aspx
 
Back
Top