NOAA’s Future and Project 2025 – Watts Up With That?

From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Cliff Mass

Several media stories have suggested that Project 2025 will be the blueprint for the Trump administration’s termination or break up of NOAA and the National Weather Service.  

I have received at least a half-dozen calls or messages asking about it.  Let’s soberly consider the Project 2025 recommendations without a political lens.

As many of you know, Project 2025 is a project of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.  It is their recommendation to the new administration.   According to President Trump, he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and does not feel bound to follow its recommendations:

Let’s consider Project 2025’s recommendations for NOAA.

It starts with a pretty strong statement:

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.  

But when you read the specifics, the tough talk is replaced by less threatening suggestions.

This is what Project 2025 says about the National Weather Service.

Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations. 

Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.2 The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. NOAA does not currently utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high-quality research and weather data. Investing in different sizes of commercial partners will increase competition while ensuring that the government solutions provided by each contract is personalized to the needs of NOAA’s weather programs

 The Project 2025 folks may have a point here. Commerical forecasts (e.g., from the WeatherChannel or Accuweather or Apple weather forecasts) are generally more skillful than NWS projections.  Don’t believe me?   Look at specific comparisons, such as those found at ForecastAdvisor.com 

The NWS is in 7th place.   At least it is ahead of Pirate Weather (pirates are obviously mediocre in weather forecasting).   Similar statistics are found at other locations around the U.S.   As a specialist in the field, I have a very good idea of why the NWS lags, including the inferior statistical combination of weather forecasts.  NOAA models (except for HRRR) are generally inferior.  

NOAA could greatly improve forecast skill by contracting with commercial firms for their forecasts, releasing local NOAA meteorologists to interact with local users, and ensuring local observations are well maintained.   The savings in reduced local staff could be used to improve national weather prediction models (such as HRRR) and enhance observations.  

A win-win situation for everyone, and it is reasonable and defendable.

Next, Project 2025 takes on the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the NOAA Environmental Satellite Service:

Review the Work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service. The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service data centers provide important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions, and are used by forecasting agencies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important issue in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.

Project 2025 is not calling for the termination of these important NOAA efforts but to present the implications of climate change/global warming more “neutrally“.

As someone who follows this issue quite closely, I really don’t think that the NHC is guilty of consistently hyping the impacts of climate change or making “adjustments” intended to support one side or the other. 

 But let’s have some perspective here:  Project 2025 is NOT recommending the end of the NHC as being claimed by some hyperventilating folks, such as the Huffington Post:

Finally, the report calls for a reduction in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and to reduce the “preponderance of its climate change research”.

Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). OAR provides theoretical science, as opposed to the applied science of the National Hurricane Center. OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed withe an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat.

I will have to give Project 2025 mixed grades on this.  NOAA AOR does BOTH theoretical AND applied science, which Project 2025 folks did not appreciate.  AOR does some very good applied and theoretical science.  I have worked with them on many projects, so I know.  Furthermore, I don’t think it is true that there is a “preponderance” of climate-change research that should be disbanded.  Yes, a few scientists in NOAA may have gone a bit “over the top” but most are not and doing good work regarding climate change.  

However, there is bloat, duplication, and ineffective spending in NOAA AOR.

Trust me, I know the locations of a lot of the skeletons in the NOAA closet.  

In summary, the Project 2025 “analysis” of NOAA has to be given mixed grades (and I did not mention the sloppy writing, with numerous grammatical errors.    But if you bother to read it, you will see that it is not calling for the death knell of NOAA as claimed by some media and climate activists.

NOAA Does Need Reform

Although Project 2025 has hits and misses regarding NOAA,  NOAA acutely needs reform.  

Major reform.   Reform that will enable it to serve its mission better.   Reform that will make it more effective and reduce bureaucratic bloat.  Reform that may well save money.

I say this as someone who has worked with NOAA for decades.  I have written several papers on NOAA’s organizational problems, served on national advisory committees, and testified in Congress on these issues.

NOAA has fallen behind in weather prediction.  It has failed to use commercial services when they offer better forecasts, are less expensive, or more efficient.  There is a huge duplication of effort within NOAA.  Large amounts of funding are wasted.  There is a lack of partnerships with the University community and particularly the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In a future blog, I will lay out the details of how NOAA could be reformed and become MUCH more effective.   With insightful reorganization and better management, NOAA could provide profoundly better forecasts and environmental information to the American people.