From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Despite An 11% Cut To NOAA's National Weather Service Staff Since 2025
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:31:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 7/9/25 00:07, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:11:43 -0400, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-07-07 22:27, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:23:51 -0400, Alan says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-07-07 01:44, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite an 11% cut to NOAA's National Weather Service staff since
>>>>> 2025, timely warnings were issued, with a flood watch 12 hours prior
>>>>> and an emergency alert 3 hours before the peak, supported by
>>>>> historical data showing effective forecasting even with reduced
>>>>> personnel. - Grok
>
>>>> And you think a Grok response...
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> "Yes." what?
>
> Yes, I think Grok...
>
>>>
>>> Prove it wrong, Lake house rich boy.
>
>> Show me the question you asked.
>
> Despite an 11% cut to NOAA's National Weather Service staff since 2025,
> were timely warnings issued [?]
Depends: what was the timeliness of prior warnings made, before cuts?
And how many warnings (vs one) were issued?
> ...and were flood watches issued 12 hours prior [?]
Depends: what was the timeliness of prior watches made, before cuts?
And how many watches (vs one) were issued?
> ... and was an emergency alert issued 3 hours before the peak of said flood,[?]
Depends: what was the leadtime provided in prior alerts, before cuts?
And how many alerts (vs one) were issued?
> ...and were these floods supported by historical data showing
> effective forecasting EVEN with reduced personnel?
Or is that the wrong question? Because its been reported a Canadian
weather model more accurately placed the storm than the US model did,
which makes a difference for which watershed receives how much.
> It's NO ONE's "job" to do anything here. I presented the facts.
But you're trying to imply that current performance was equivalent to
past performance, as well as implying that past performance levels were
acceptable.
> Flood watches were issued 12 hours before the floods and an emergency
> flood WARNING was issued 3 hours in advance, despite the
> cutbacks.
>
> The cutbacks had NO effect.
Nope, you've failed to prove that comparison.
As noted above, just because one warning went out 3 hours prior doesn't
mean that prior events received just one warning at only 3hrs prior.
Vs prior similar events, how many warnings went out for those vs now?
And with how much leadtime then vs now?
Similarly, were there other actions also taken, such as making phone
calls to County official POCs?
FYI, just because there was staff who came in on overtime doesn't mean
that prior events didn't have larger staffs who also came in on OT too.
Without knowing what the prior baseline performance was, your innuendo
attempt that the current support activities were unchanged ... fails.
-hh