[EAS] Senate Bill Could Cut NWS Offices from 122 to 6

[Mike McCarthy]

Some rambling thoughts......

I think there can be a balance of sorts. WhIle I agree local staffing is a
significant matter for transient severe weather conditions (and
"transient" certainly can be debated depending on the location), I think
the general forecasting aspect can be done on a more consolidated or
regional basis. Particularly if the observation data granularity provided
to the forecasters can be significantluy increased. Such as greater
density of multi-product radars, wind profilers, sensors, and other tools
necessary for the forecaster to look forward. And thus leaving the
reactionary roles to more localized staffs.

We need to be mindful of the fact most present day forecaster duties are
not the same as they were a generation ago where physical observation was
a significant part of their mission and manning/observing the radar was an
on-site requirement. Most official observations are automated (with manual
obswervations limited to larger airports where a human does certain tasks
manually) and radar information is now widely deployed and readily used by
people near and far. Add the far more widely deployed MESONET system and
there are more points of sample than ever before. And storm/event spotting
and reporting is also something nearly anyone can participate. Even in the
most remote areas of the country where there have been no observations
prior.

One other thing....staffing at the more remote sites (Caribou, ME. and
Duluth, Mn. come to mind) is challenging. If a well seasoned and stable
staffed WFO in, say Boston or MSP, can supply forecating information to
that part of Maine or Minn/Wisc. equally well as a green forecaster who
will likely only be there a few years. I think there is some merit to the
reasoning.

However, the above must balance the needs of a given area for the high
value short fuse events of severe weather. And while places like Missoula,
Mt. don't see that much severe weather relative to say, Oklahoma City or
Dallas, the need still exists. And some responsibilities outside of severe
weather need to be kept more local than regionalized.

All subject to further discussion I'm sure.

MM

On Sat, June 20, 2015 7:12 pm, Adrienne Abbott wrote:
> Staffed by "a Warning Coordination Meteorologist"? "a"??? As in one
> WCM???
> Do these people have a clue how many people it takes to run a WFO in a
> disaster, like the fires and floods we're seeing across the country now?
> Are
> you kidding me? That is a disaster. People will die. Thank you Gary for