Yeah that was my take too considering most of his argument is "spin it out of NOAA" and consolidate. The whole thing seems like a standard MBA reorg plan. Also

Yeah that was my take too considering most of his argument is "spin it out of NOAA" and consolidate. The whole thing seems like a standard MBA reorg plan. Also I don't think his data supports his argument. He shows, for instance, that GFS and ECMWF track each other in his own quality metric, that modern GFS is basically the same quality as ECMWF was in 2012, and that they are slowly converging. This is hardly a "decline." The reason why ECMWF and GFS track eachother is that they're using the same data! The dominant limit on how good weather prediction can be is the amount and quality of the initial state data. ECMWF is proof that GFS could improve still, but let's be real: it's very good and unlike ECMWF it is free. That, I think, is the real problem this guy has. The Accuweather CEO (who is a Trump supporter) and a lot of the private meteorology industry want NOAA to get out of the business of weather forecasting so that they can charge people for lifesaving information. They pump ECMWF mostly because it's not free. Even the data showing it is superior is often somewhat cherry picked. For instance, it missed Hurricane Milton for quite a while while GFS was predicting its development and ultimate path pretty accurately.