"Any tinkering with the federal agencies that form our weather forecasting system’s backbone — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) — should be done with care and deliberation," Jill Burcum writes. Above, a tornado funnel cloud touches down in Orchard, Ia. on June 10, 2008. (Lori Mehmen/The Associated Press)

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I heard many harrowing stories when an EF5 tornado struck my childhood home of Parkersburg, Ia., in the spring of 2008. All were sobering but one from Tommy Teeple, the town’s barbershop owner, stood out among the rest.

He was at home with his wife on that fateful May 25. When the sirens went off, they headed to the basement, a feat made more difficult by her ill health and mobility concerns.

They barely made it. As they got to the stairs’ bottom, the storm’s powerful forces began pulling him back up the stairs, causing him to wonder for a terrifying moment if he’d be sucked outside along with everything else in their house. Had this kindly couple hesitated going down the stairs for even a few moments, the answer might have been “yes.”

While Tommy and his wife have since passed on, I think of their battle to get to the basement every time a tornado warning sounds. Seconds save lives during a weather emergency. Accurate forecasting that is shared freely and widely is essential to give those in harm’s way enough time to seek shelter.

While weather predictions are never going to be perfect, the current system serves us well. This week’s snowstorm reminds us again of that, with predictions spot on about the blizzard conditions that shut down major roads and many schools on Wednesday. Any tinkering with the federal agencies that form our weather forecasting system’s backbone — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) — should be done with care and deliberation.

Instead, the exact opposite is happening with NOAA and NWS swept up in Elon Musk’s blunderbuss of a cost-cutting campaign. At least 600 people, a conservative estimate, have been terminated, resulting in a 6% contraction of the “government’s climate and weather enterprise’s workforce,” the Washington Post reports.

Some might scoff at the 6% contraction and its impact. But Paul Douglas, one of Minnesota’s best-known meteorologists, isn’t one of them.

Generations of Minnesotans have trusted Douglas’ voice, whether it’s on TV, the radio or on the Minnesota Star Tribune’s weather page, to guide them through extreme weather. They ought to heed him again as he sounds the alarm about the NOAA and NWS job losses.

“These cuts will make it harder to keep your family safe when skies turn threatening. Hype? Wait for it. This isn’t efficiency. It’s insanity. A potentially deadly edition of FAFO,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter) last Friday.

I work for a family newspaper, so I can’t fully spell out that last acronym, but AFO stands for “around and find out.”

These are strong words, especially coming from the affable and usually unflappable Douglas. I reached out to him on Tuesday to follow up. Douglas continued sounding the equivalent of a tornado siren about weakening these agencies’ foundational role in forecasting.

He quickly made three key points:

These agencies are already short-staffed. “We’re not cutting fat. We’re cutting bone,” he said.
Weather information’s economic value exceeds $100 billion a year, roughly 10 times U.S. taxpayers' annual investment in weather science, according to the American Meteorological Society.
There are no quick or easy replacements for the NWS/NOAA services and expertise.

Those apps on your phone that some might believe would offer an easy alternative to NOAA and NWS? The data powering them comes from the agencies. The data also plays a vital role for TV meteorologists and in the operations of private companies, like the one he owns that provides weather consulting services.

If you start chopping away at these agencies, Douglas warned, it’s going to show up over the long haul in missed forecasts and have other negative impacts, such as undermining advances in weather modeling.

Douglas is especially concerned about the consequences when severe weather is imminent.

“I can disagree with the NWS forecast ... I can put my own spin on it and interpret the data differently. But when it comes to severe weather, we speak with one voice and that is the official NWS warning,” he said. ”If we move from that model, it could dissolve into anarchy, confusion and people not knowing what to believe.”

That could have deadly consequences if people get conflicting information and don’t act quickly to protect themselves from tornadoes, hurricanes and floods.

“The body count will go up,” Douglas said.

Another potential consequence to be wary of: the potential cost impact on consumers if there’s a push to replace NOAA and NWS with private-sector equivalents.

While Douglas said some elements provided by the agencies could be outsourced, he repeated his concerns about conflicting forecasts causing inaction. He also noted that consumers can access NOAA and NWS for free. Anyone can go to the agencies' websites, for example, and there’s no charge for doing so, though obviously tax dollars fund both.

If the private sector is expected to fill the void left by a shrunken NWS, that could change. Would consumers and other entities have to pay for their tornado warnings or other alarms?

“A lot of people can’t or won’t do that and the risk will go up,” Douglas said.

Douglas also dispensed with notions that artificial intelligence (AI) could be tapped as an alternative. “It isn’t there yet. It’s not even close to being able to replace what humans can do. Research shows that the most accurate forecasts consistently day in and day out are man plus machine,” he said.

“Some of the people let go were actually working on AI and ways to be more efficient. I find that very ironic,” he added.

The federal cutbacks and job losses have made the extended outlook for weather forecasting “murky,” Douglas said, a reality that has him deeply concerned.

“Yes, budgets are important and efficiency is important but we have to err on the side of making sure that people get the information they need to not only save their lives but improve their livelihoods and their businesses.”

I’m thankful for whoever sounded the siren in Iowa on May 25, 2008. The U.S. experiences the world’s most extreme weather. Forecasting must meet that need. We ought to be investing in, not undermining, the system that safeguards our friends, family and communities.