Davin News Server

On 7/10/25 00:17, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:31:43 -0400,  -hh says...
> 
> "I don't wanna look nothing up, because that would prove you were right, and we can't have that."

Precisely what AlleyCat did.


> We have to ask a bunch of questions that we don't wanna KNOW the answers to, or are near impossible to look up.

Nearly impossible...yet AlleyCat still made their claim.


> Do YOU know where to find the answers to your questions? I might, but I'm not 
> playing your faggot liberal games. YOU look it all up
> and YOU answer the questions.
> 
> As rich boy Baker likes to say... "eet na my yob."

Because it wasn't my claim (nor Alan's):  it was your claim.  Of course, 
trying to dodge accountability on it damages your reputation, not that 
you have much of one.


> Liberal logic, continued: We want to put it on YOU, to see if you make 
> a mistake, and if you don't, simply ask another bunch of
> stupid questions, we don't wanna know the answers to.

Nope:  its how USENET has functioned for decades.


> 
> You liberals' games are too easy to see.
> ...
> Despite an 11% cut to NOAA's National Weather Service staff since 2025, ...

So one can just cut staff .. and there's never any consequences?
Pull my other leg.


> ...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

[quote]
Regarding this month's catastrophic flash floods in Kerr County, Texas: 
there's been claims made that staff cuts at the National Weather Service 
had utterly no effect on the number, timing or quality of the NWS 
warnings issued:  is this claim supportable?


The claim that National Weather Service (NWS) staff cuts had no effect 
on the number, timing, or quality of flash flood warnings issued for the 
July 2025 Kerr County, Texas, floods is partially supportable but 
requires nuance. Here’s a critical examination based on available 
information:Evidence Supporting the ClaimTimely Issuance of Warnings: 
The NWS issued a flood watch for Kerr County at 1:18 p.m. CDT on July 3, 
2025, warning of 1–3 inches of rain with isolated areas potentially 
seeing 5–7 inches. A flash flood warning was issued at 1:14 a.m. on July 
4, followed by a flash flood emergency at 4:03 a.m., providing over 
three hours of lead time before significant flooding was reported at 
4:35 a.m. These warnings were described as timely by multiple experts, 
including meteorologist Avery Tomasco, who stated, “They did their job 
and they did it well.”

Adequate Staffing During the Event: The NWS Austin/San Antonio office, 
responsible for Kerr County, had five staff members on duty during the 
storm, compared to the usual two for an overnight shift, indicating 
proactive staffing adjustments. A NOAA spokesperson confirmed that both 
the Austin/San Antonio and San Angelo offices were adequately staffed 
during the floods. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also 
stated that the San Angelo office was fully staffed with 12 forecasters, 
and the San Antonio office had 11.

Expert Consensus on Forecast Quality: Several meteorologists, including 
John Morales and Matt Lanza, defended the NWS, stating there was no 
evidence that staff cuts degraded the anticipatory warnings. Morales 
noted, “I don’t see any evidence that cuts to NOAA/NWS caused any 
degradation in the anticipatory weather warnings ahead of this Texas 
tragedy.” Lanza emphasized that the forecasts were as accurate as 
possible given the unpredictable nature of localized, extreme rainfall.

Challenges Beyond NWS Control: The extreme rainfall—up to 15 inches in 
some areas, far exceeding the forecasted 5–7 inches—was difficult to 
predict with precision due to the limitations of current meteorological 
science. Louis W. Uccellini, former NWS director, noted that such 
rainfall rates are inherently hard to forecast. The overnight timing and 
the lack of a local flood warning system in Kerr County further 
complicated public response, issues unrelated to NWS staffing.

Evidence Challenging the ClaimStaffing Shortages and Coordination 
Issues: While the NWS issued timely warnings, staffing cuts may have 
impacted post-warning coordination with local officials. The Austin/San 
Antonio office was missing a warning coordination meteorologist, a 
critical role for liaising with emergency managers, due to early 
retirements incentivized by the Trump administration’s Department of 
Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts. The San Angelo office lacked a 
permanent meteorologist-in-charge and a senior hydrologist. Former NOAA 
administrator Rick Spinrad suggested that the absence of the warning 
coordination meteorologist may have hindered follow-up communication, 
potentially reducing the effectiveness of warnings reaching the public.

Impact of DOGE Cuts: The NWS lost approximately 600 staff members (out 
of 4,200) in 2025 due to DOGE-initiated layoffs, early retirements, and 
buyouts, leading to vacancy rates of up to 20% at some offices. While 
the Austin/San Antonio office had a 15% meteorologist vacancy rate, and 
the overall vacancy rate rose from 12% to 23% by April 2025, experts 
like Tom Fahy noted that staffing was sufficient for issuing warnings 
but acknowledged that vacant leadership roles posed ongoing concerns. 
These shortages could have strained coordination efforts, especially in 
a region prone to flash flooding.

Local Communication Failures: Kerr County lacked a robust local flood 
warning system, and no alerts were issued through the county’s CodeRED 
system until 90 minutes after the NWS’s flash flood emergency at 4:03 
a.m. A firefighter’s request at 4:22 a.m. to alert residents was 
delayed, with some messages not reaching the public until 10 a.m. While 
this points to local government failures, the absence of NWS personnel 
dedicated to coordination may have exacerbated the disconnect, as noted 
by former officials.

Broader Context of Cuts: The DOGE cuts reduced weather balloon launches 
at some NWS stations, though not at Del Rio, the nearest station to Kerr 
County, which operated normally. Critics, including Democrats and former 
NWS officials, warned that chronic understaffing and reduced data 
collection could degrade future forecasting capabilities, even if the 
Kerr County warnings were adequate.

Critical Analysis The NWS’s ability to issue timely and accurate 
warnings appears intact, as evidenced by the flood watch, warnings, and 
emergency alerts issued with significant lead time. The claim that staff 
cuts had no effect on the number, timing, or quality of warnings is 
largely supported by the fact that the NWS followed protocol and staffed 
up for the event. However, the claim is not fully airtight because the 
absence of key personnel, like the warning coordination meteorologist, 
may have weakened communication with local officials, potentially 
reducing the warnings’ effectiveness. The extreme rainfall and overnight 
timing, combined with Kerr County’s lack of a local alert system, were 
significant factors in the tragedy, arguably overshadowing NWS staffing 
issues.

Conclusion: The claim that NWS staff cuts had no effect on the warnings 
is mostly supportable for the issuance of warnings, as they were timely 
and aligned with available data. However, the cuts likely contributed to 
coordination challenges, which may have indirectly affected how warnings 
were acted upon locally. The primary failures appear to lie with local 
emergency management’s delayed response and the absence of a county-wide 
alert system, rather than the NWS’s forecasting performance. For a 
definitive assessment, further investigation into local response 
timelines and NWS-local coordination is needed, but the current evidence 
suggests the NWS performed adequately despite staffing constraints.
[/quote]

- Grok


TL;DR:  having a good forecast is a small consolation when the 
information dissemination system is curtailed/system failure.


-hh