Welcome to this edition of the Meteorology Matters
podcast. Great to be here. If you enjoy discussions
like this one, remember you can follow meteorologist
Rob Jones. He's on Instagram at Meteorologist,
TikTok at TVMeteorologist. And YouTube as well.
Right, YouTube, follow Rob Jones Hurricane. You
can also find the Meteorology Matters podcast
playlist there. Good stuff. So today we're diving
into some, well. pretty significant shifts within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, and the National Weather Service too. Yes,
especially with a potentially active storm season
basically upon us. It's concerning timing. Exactly.
There are indicators that staffing levels at
the National Weather Service are facing some,
let's say, considerable challenges. So putting
it mildly. We want to look at what this might
mean for the forecasts and warnings, you know,
the ones everyone relies on. Accuracy, timeliness,
all of that. It's definitely a situation worth
watching closely. It's not just one thing. It's
a combination of factors really squeezing the
agency. OK, so let's start with the staffing
itself. I read about a recent federal buyout
offer. That's right. A buyout was offered, and
the expectation is that at least 300 National
Weather Service employees are leaving because
of it. The deadline was just this past Thursday.
300 people? That sounds like a lot on its own.
But this isn't the only reason for vacancies,
is it? No, not at all. This is layered on top
of existing shortages. You've got retirements
happening naturally, plus vacancies from previous
buyouts or separations that just haven't been
filled. It's been an ongoing issue. So the Weather
Service Director, Ken Graham, he's actually spoken
about this. He has. He indicated that the situation
is getting quite serious, potentially leaving
several forecast offices with maybe only seven
meteorologists. Seven. What's the usual number?
Well, ideally, you'd want something like 12 to
15 meteorologists in a typical forecast office
to cover everything, you know, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, especially during active weather.
Wow. So seven instead of 15. That's basically
half. The workload must be immense. It effectively
means each person is potentially doing the work
of almost two people. That leads to burnout,
fatigue and frankly increases the risk of errors.
And looking bigger picture, the entire agency
size. It's shrunk considerably. Yeah, the numbers
suggest the Weather Service is nearly 20 % smaller
now than it was when President Donald Trump took
office. 20%. That's a significant chunk of their
workforce gone. It really is. Yeah. And that's
why you're hearing concerns, serious concerns,
from meteorologists still on the job and from
public officials too. What are they most worried
about? The fear is that these kinds of staff
reductions could have, well, potentially deadly
consequences when severe weather hits. Fewer
people means less capacity to monitor constantly,
issue warnings quickly, communicate effectively
with emergency managers. So it's a chain reaction.
Exactly. Everything gets stretched thinner. And
are these shortages spread evenly or are some
areas feeling it more? It seems to be hitting
the central part of the country particularly
hard. Offices like Kansas City, Omaha, Louisville,
Des Moines, Grand Rapids. They're reportedly
facing the biggest staffing gaps. And those areas
get a lot of severe weather, don't they? Tornadoes,
big thunderstorms. Precisely. It's a concerning
concentration of shortages in a very active weather
region. So how are the folks still working there
coping more hours? Definitely more over time,
significantly more from what we understand. Fewer
shifts are fully staffed, which is risky. Meaning
sometimes there just aren't enough people physically
there. Right. And you're also seeing managers
having to step back from their you know, management
duties to actually work the forecast desk just
to keep basic services running. That can't be
sustainable in the long run. I saw a quote from
a former meteorologist in charge. Ah, but what
about stretching things? You can only stretch
things so much. Eventually things start to break.
That really paints a picture. It does. It highlights
the intense pressure and the potential breaking
points. Well, delayed warnings, maybe less specific
forecasts, missing subtle clues in the data.
because people are just overloaded. Human error
becomes more likely too, I imagine. Absolutely.
When you're tired, working long hours under stress,
mistakes can happen. And in weather forecasting,
mistakes can have serious impacts. It's not just
about the number of people either, right? I heard
something about building maintenance issues.
Yes, that was a striking example. Reports mentioned
a forecast office in Kentucky during recent deadly
storms actually had to use portable toilets because
of facility issues. Portable toilets. Trying
to issue warnings for deadly weather. It sounds
unbelievable, but it highlights the challenging
conditions some staff are working under. It's
not just about forecast models. It's about basic
infrastructure sometimes. That's just... Rough.
And these buyouts, they weren't just at the Weather
Service, but across NOAA generally. Correct.
The broader National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration saw over 870 employees volunteer
for buyouts as of last Wednesday. Over 870 across
the whole agency. So this impacts fisheries,
ocean research, everything NOAA does. Potentially,
yes. It raises questions about the agency's overall
capacity across its wide range of responsibilities.
And is there a sense among the staff who are
left that this might not be the end of the cuts?
There's definitely anxiety reported among staff
about potential future cuts, possibly through
something called a reduction in force or RIF.
That uncertainty just adds more stress. Now politically,
the Trump administration's budget proposal for
next year. It mentioned NOAA, didn't it? It did.
The proposal included a pretty significant cut
to NOAA's overall budget, about 27%. 27 % cut
overall, but the Weather Service itself. Interestingly,
the proposal kept the National Weather Service's
funding level flat. No cut, but no increase either.
So the Weather Service budget stays the same,
but other parts of NOAA face big cuts. That seems
to be the plan outlined in that proposal. However...
It's crucial, as we said, that even with flat
funding, the Weather Service was already understaffed
before these latest 300 departures. Right. So
flat funding with fewer people still means doing
more with less or maybe doing less, period. Exactly.
It still poses major challenges for maintaining
the level of service people expect and need.
OK, so given these staffing issues, what are
the potential direct impacts on the weather services
we actually receive? Well, a memo surfaced. obtained
by the Washington Post, outlining potential service
cutbacks. One big one is weather balloon launches.
The weather balloons? I see those mentioned sometimes.
Why are they so important? They're absolutely
critical. They launch twice a day from 92 sites
across the U .S. They carry instruments called
radio sons way up into the atmosphere. What do
those instruments measure? Temperature, pressure,
humidity, wind speed, and direction. Basically,
giving us a vertical profile of the atmosphere.
It's fundamental data that goes directly into
the computer weather models. Ah, so the models
need that data to make accurate predictions?
Precisely. It's also vital for aviation safety.
Without that 3D atmospheric data, the forecasts
just aren't as good. You lose resolution, maybe
miss developing features. And are we already
seeing fewer launches? Yes, there have already
been instances, especially in the Northern Plains
and Rockies, where launches have been limited
or even skipped entirely due to staffing or other
issues. Less data means potentially less reliable
forecasts downstream. That makes sense. I also
heard about a directive possibly reducing the
number of meteorologists on duty during quiet
times. That's right. A Commerce Department directive
floated the idea of having just a single meteorologist
working during quiet weather periods if vacancy
rates climb. Just one person covering everything.
The initial memo even linked higher vacancy rates,
like 15%, to reducing balloon launches and maybe
even suspending them at 35 % vacancy. Suspending
balloon launches? That sounds drastic. It does.
Now there was an update that sort of walked that
back slightly, encouraging launches to continue
with one meteorologist as long as a second person
is available just for the prep work. But still,
it points towards much leaner staffing, even
around the clock. Definitely a sign of trying
to operate with fewer resources, being stretched
thin 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And it
wasn't just balloons and staffing levels. Something
about language translation, too. Yeah, this is
another concerning point. A contract for automatically
translating weather service warnings into Spanish
has apparently lapsed. It wasn't renewed. So
no more automatic Spanish translations. It seems
that way, which feels like a step backward, honestly.
There had been efforts to improve multilingual
communication, especially after past disasters
showed how crucial it is to reach everyone. Absolutely.
Getting safety info out in multiple languages
seems essential. Losing that capability potentially
leaves a large group of people more vulnerable
because they might not get timely warnings in
a language they understand. That's really unfortunate.
And there was almost a major IT problem, too.
Yes, a very close call. In late March, right
when some dangerous storms were brewing, they
nearly lost access to what was described as a
cornerstone IT system. Cornerstone. So, like,
really important. Sounds like it. The system
used for processing Wego data was due to a contract
issue that apparently got resolved literally
at the last minute. Wow. I'm maddened losing
that system right before a severe weather outbreak.
It highlights the kind of background vulnerabilities
and pressures the agency is dealing with beyond
just the frontline forecasting staff. It really
sounds like the dedication of the folks working
there is being tested from all sides. Absolutely.
And these immediate pressures, the staffing,
the balloons, they're happening while there are
also big questions about the future of the research
that actually improves forecasting, right? These
long term threats. Yes. And this could be the
most damaging part in the long run. The administration's
proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 includes
a plan to completely eliminate NOAA's Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research Office. OAR. Eliminate
it. The entire research office. That's the proposal.
It would mean closing its 10 research labs and
also shutting down the 16 affiliated cooperative
institutes, which are partnerships, often with
universities. Where would the research go? The
plan says remaining research efforts would be
sort of scattered, moved into other NOAA departments,
but essentially all the dedicated weather, climate,
and ocean labs would close. That sounds devastating
for the science side of things. It would be a
massive blow. The American Meteorological Society,
the AMS, and the National Weather Association,
the NWA, put out a joint statement. expressing
extreme concern. What did they say? They said
this would, and I'm paraphrasing here, drastically
undercut the scientific backbone and the workforce
needed for the accurate forecasts and warnings
we depend on. With potentially disastrous consequences.
Yes, for public safety and the economy. They
also pointed out there wasn't much opportunity
for feedback on this decision, suggesting it
was maybe rushed. What kind of research comes
out of these labs that we might lose? Can you
give some examples? Oh, fundamental stuff. They
highlighted the development of the National Doppler
Radar Network, NECAXRAD, that came from NOAA
research. Our main tool for seeing storms. Exactly.
Also, the creation and constant improvement of
the computer weather models the National Weather
Service relies on every single day. Those models
need continuous research to get better. Okay,
so radar and the forecast models, what else?
The NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft program, those
planes flying into storms, that capability stems
from NOAA research. Gathering that critical hurricane
data. Right. And models that track airborne hazards
think wildfire smoke, toxic plumes, volcanic
ash. That's OAR work, too. Things we've seen
become more and more important recently. Definitely.
Even things like the system that warns about
low oxygen hypoxia in the Great Lakes or the
real -time tsunami monitoring system. Tsunami
monitoring too. Wow. Yes. And the systems that
help predict El Nino for seasonal forecasts or
manage water reservoirs. Plus all the fundamental
climate modeling and monitoring networks. It's
a huge portfolio. So if this research stops or
is severely curtailed, the tools that the forecasters
use will just Stagnate. That's the fear. Forecasts
might stop improving or even get worse over time
as the science stalls. Observational data could
decrease. Outreach could suffer. University research
funding would plummet. It's a ripple effect.
The AMS made a point about the cost, didn't they?
Something about coffee. Yeah, they put it quite
starkly. They said, no research costs every American
citizen less than a cup of coffee per year. Less
than a cup of coffee. But provides massive returns
in safety and economic benefits by improving
forecasts and warnings. It really frames the
value proposition. That's a powerful way to put
it. And because of these concerns, both the AMS
and NWA are urging people, if they're concerned,
to contact their elected representatives and
share their views on these proposed cuts. So,
wrapping this up, it's clear we're looking at
some really significant changes potentially affecting
how we monitor and predict weather. Yeah, the
combination of the immediate staffing crunch
of the Weather Service and these proposed deep
cuts to NOAA's research arm. it raises serious
questions. Questions about the future reliability
of forecasts, warnings, and ultimately public
safety. It seems crucial to stay informed about
this. Absolutely. These aren't small tweaks.
They could be fundamental shifts. We definitely
encourage listeners to keep following this story,
stay informed, and perhaps, as suggested, reach
out to your representatives with your thoughts.
Your voice can matter on issues like this. And
for more discussions like this, and to stay updated,
remember to follow meteorologist Rob Jones. Instagram
Meteorologist, TikTok TV Meteorologist, and YouTube
Rob Jones Hurricane, where you'll also find the
Meteorology Matters podcast playlist. Thanks
for tuning in. Thank you for joining us for this
edition of the Meteorology Matters podcast.