Those NWS folks made a blanket statement that Dorian would have no impact on Alabama, which was too strong since the updated forecasts on Sunday morning had a small probability (5-10%) of tropical storm winds reaching Alabama. Furthermore, as the storm passed there WERE modest impacts on Alabama, with winds gusting to around 25 mph. And sinking air forced by the storm resulted in several daily temperature records being broken in Alabama.
Now, you would think that this was a really small story, with Trump making a small error in one his tweets. Who would ever depend on Trump’s tweets for an important weather forecast? But in this hyper-partisan world, many media sources pushed stories making fun of Trump, describing how he was undermining weather prediction (see CNN headline below).
It is clear that the President was uninformed about hurricanes and he made a mistake on the Alabama threat. But the media went into hyper mocking mode and tried to score some points on him…and this President doesn’t like to be mocked and became defensive. In the end, one person was going to pay the price for it: acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs
The next stage of this sad drama occurred the next Wednesday when President Trump talked about the hurricane and used an OLD National Hurricane Center forecast uncertainty chart (see below). He was correct in saying that the previous track took the storm into Florida and the Gulf, but did not know that the latest predictions swung the storm north. Someone had put a black line going into Alabama—presumably with a sharpie pen. Trump never discussed it.
But that unmentioned line cause the media and some others to go wild, claiming he was deceiving the public, illegally altering official NOAA charts and more. This reaction was excessive and was meant to put Trump on the defensive. And it did.
According to a number of sources, Trump told his Chief of Staff, Mike Mulvaney to have NOAA deal with the situation. Mulvaney then called Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, who in turn telephoned Neil Jacobs, Acting Administrator of NOAA. Ross’ call implied that Jacobs and others were vulnerable if something wasn’t done.
Dr. Neil Jacobs, who is now acting administrator NOAA, was previously chief scientist for Panasonic’s weather business and an expert in numerical weather prediction. I have known him for a number of years and have the greatest respect for him, both as a scientist and as a straight-shooting, ethical individual. Although a Trump appointee, Dr. Jacobs is not political, but extraordinarily dedicated to improving U.S. weather prediction. An outside agent of change that NOAA has needed for a long time. But he is a young man without extensive experience in DC and dealing with its shark-filled political waters. And he was just about to be bitten by a shark. In fact, several sharks.
According to the NY Times and a recent report commissioned by NOAA (the NAPA report), Dr. Jacobs pushed back on Secretary of Commerce Ross’ demands of a strong statement supporting the president (these demands by Commerce leadership and the White House were totally inappropriate).
Neil Jacobs was under great pressure. What should he do? Neil knew that the Trump administration was supportive of improving U.S. weather prediction.. So should he resign and publicly oppose the President, jeopardizing the potential to enhance weather prediction, which would save lives and property? Or should he revise a harsh statement produce by Commerce folks to one that was completely true but far more benign. A statement that any real meteorologist would immediately know as meaningless, but would satisfy the weather-ignorant in the Trump administration?
Which was the ethical choice? The choice of integrity? The best for the American people? I believe Neil made the correct choice. But he would pay a price for it.
On Sept. 6, the following statement, substantially massaged by Dr. Jacobs, was released by NOAA:
The first paragraph is completely correct–the National Hurricane Center guidance DID have some probability of tropical storm force winds reaching Alabama during that period. The second paragraph was also true: the Birmingham NWS forecasters said there would be NO IMPACTS and did not qualify the risks (impacts of what?, their tweet suggested the chances were zero % rather than the predicted 5-10%).
So the NOAA statement was entirely true and did NOT say that Birmingham office tweet was wrong, just that it would have been better to note the probabilities. And apparently this artfully true/vague statement was allowed to replace a far harsher statement prepared by Commerce department leadership.
You would think that everyone would breathe a sigh of relief in Dr. Jacob’s skillful finesse in dealing with this situation. But not in this hyper-partisan environment. And not with some folks in NOAA who were an unhappy with Dr. Jacobs efforts to move the agency to a new paradigm for numerical weather prediction. The sharks were about to attack.
Scientific Integrity Charges
After the statement went out, there was a hue and cry by some of the media and a few individuals suggesting that NOAA science was being undermined by the statement and that the Birmingham forecasters were being criticized and punished. One of the main complainants against Dr. Jacobs was a leading NOAA administrator, Craig McLean, who is chief scientist of NOAA (ironically Mr. McLean as an attorney does not have any science background).
Based on these complaints, the designated NOAA integrity officer, Dr. Stephen Volz, brought in a panel from an independent group (NAPA, National Academy of Public Administration) to evaluate the situation. None of these individuals were familiar with NOAA or the subject domain.
Their report (here) evaluated three charges. The first was:
Media guidance issued by NOAA leadership between September 1 and
6, 2019, limited the ability of scientists to communicate with the media and the public
about their research findings. Policies allegedly violated include Section 4.05; Section
4.06; and Section 5.02 (a), (d), and (k) of NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy.
This charge was found to be baseless.
On the other hand, NOAA senior leadership was found by the panel to have violated NOAA integrity policy regarding two issues:
The Birmingham WFO forecasters were not provided the opportunity to
review and opine on the September 6 Statement that referenced the September 1
Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific activity. Policies allegedly violated include
Section 7.01 of NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy.
The drafting of the September 6 Statement was driven by external
political pressure from Department of Commerce (Commerce) senior leaders and
inappropriately criticized the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific
activity. Further, the September 6 Statement compromised NOAA’s integrity and
reputation as an independent scientific agency and violated Section 7.02 of NOAA’s
Scientific Integrity Policy.
On the basis of these conclusions, there was been substantial media buzz criticizing Administrator Jacobs and even a call by Congressman Tonko to have Dr. Jacobs resign.
But even a superficial view of these charges quickly reveal they are baseless and ill-informed.
Consider the first “charge”, that the Birmingham forecasters did not have a chance to comment on the statement. This is just silly. The section in questions (7.01) does not refer to forecasts or to tweets sent out by forecasters. It is about science integrity issues regarding research papers and particularly press releases and the like referring to NOAA science researcher’s efforts (you can read the section here). What makes this particularly nonsensical is that if followed, every NOAA communication would have to be vetted by every supporting information source within the agency. Thus, a forecaster in Charleston would have to get the ok from the National Hurricane Center and any office that provided information used in the local prediction. U.S. weather prediction would be impossible.
The second charge is also baseless.
That section says that NOAA officials must not: “Suppress, alter, or otherwise impede the timely release of scientific or technological findings or conclusions:
There was no suppressing of anything in this case; the tweets had already gone out.
Don’t get me wrong. This NOAA statement was not a good thing. The Commerce Department’s pressure was inappropriate. But the mention of the Birmingham NWS office was OPPOSED by Dr. Jacobs in meetings with Commerce officials and he was overruled. The actual statement should be seen for what it was: an attempt to protect the agency by putting out a true but meaningless message that would deflect and end inappropriate pressure by the Trump administration. You may not agree with Dr. Jacob’s approach, but charges of lack of scientific integrity against him are hurtful and wrong.
The National Weather Service Forecasters in Birmingham Support Dr. Jacobs
You would think that if the NOAA statement was really problematic for NOAA staff, the forecasters at Birmingham would be the first to complain. The opposite was the case, with the Birmingham office staff supportive of NOAA administrator Jacobs (stories here or here). To make his support of the local NWS office absolutely clear, Dr. Jacobs spoke to the National Weather Association (a group that encompasses NWS forecasters) and to the local office in question. They were understanding and not critical of him. Interestingly, Dr. Jacobs was a classmate of several of the forecasters in the Birmingham office and is still friends with them. No NOAA administrator has been more interested in, knowledgeable about, and more in tune with NWS forecasters.
Dr. Jacob’s Visit to the Birmingham NWS Forecast Office
Neil Jacobs Has Been the Change Agent NOAA has Needed
It has been clear for years that NOAA has needed new, more assertive leadership. U.S. numerical prediction has stagnated (to fourth place in global prediction), satellite systems have had technical problems and huge overruns, and more. Bringing someone in from the outside was critical (Dr. Jacobs was chief scientist in the Panasonic weather group).
Dr. Jacobs has been the advocate of a new EPIC center for numerical weather prediction that will help bring NOAA and academic researchers together to improve U.S. numerical prediction. He has also worked to improve NOAA’s financial management, saving the nation hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, several congressmen/women has acknowledged Neil’s role in saving the nation roughly 750 million dollars on satellite acquisition. For example, Congressman Frank Lucas of the House Environment Committee stated:
I also want to thank Dr. Neil Jacobs for his leadership during this time. Not only are Dr. Jacobs and NOAA producing high-quality data and forecasts, but they are also doing it in a cost-effective manner and saving taxpayers $735 million dollars
But Neil Jacobs’ role in dealing with some of the festering problems in NOAA has irritated some long-term NOAA bureaucrats.
The Real Victims of Sharpiegate: Dr. Jacobs and the American People
President Trump showed himself to be ill-informed on hurricane Dorian and the attempt to mark up an old forecast chart was comical. His pressure on NOAA through the Department of Commerce was inappropriate and unethical. But the attempt of some NOAA administrators, media, and others to attack NOAA acting administrator Neil Jacobs is both wrong and hurtful. It is an attempt to sully the reputation of an extraordinarily dedicated public servant and administrator, whose passion is to repair and improve U.S. weather prediction capabilities.
It is attacking the victim. And if they succeed in damaging Dr. Jacobs, who is an extraordinarily effective change agent in NOAA, U.S. weather prediction will be weakened and all the American people will become victims, with poorer warnings and guidance for severe and other weather.