In brief: While Gulf development continues to be unlikely, we will probably see unsettled, wet weather try to make another run at the Gulf Coast, Southeast, and Texas next week. The Pacific remains congested with a lot of lower-end activity, as El NiƱo continues ramping up. Plus, we address reader questions on recently announced ocean research cuts.
Gulf update
The good news is that the odds of any Gulf development continue to remain pleasantly low over the next 7 to 10 days. A little bit of “noise” continues to show up in modeling by this coming weekend and early next week. Even the slightly busier ensemble model from the European ensemble is showing a fair bit of shear in the Gulf next week as well, so the chance of anything significant growing out of any storminess is extremely low.
Still, we’ll watch. I think more interestingly will be the precipitation we see emerge in this pattern, with another soaking possible from Texas into the Southeast either beginning this weekend or next week. Through this past Saturday, many parts of the Gulf Coast and Texas had seen 150 to 300 percent of normal rainfall over the previous month.

Another surge of moisture may lead to additional flooding concerns in these areas, so we’ll see how that evolves.
Eastern Pacific
Meanwhile, the Eastern Pacific remains busy, with Amanda dissipating out at sea, and Tropical Storm Boris near the Mexican coast.
I have to be honest: With a name like Boris, I expected more. Anyway, the second Pacific storm of the season will move ashore tonight as a tropical storm. Behind that is another disturbance passing off the coast of Nicaragua that will continue up the coast and eventually probably move inland. There is a chance that this one also becomes a tropical storm.
There’s just a lot of congestion along the Central America coast on the Pacific side, again, usually a calling card of an El NiƱo event.
Miscellany
We’ve been asked by a number of readers about a story making the rounds that first appeared in the New York Times about the Trump administration cutting and removing a deep ocean observation system around the globe. This project began 10 years ago and included over $350 million in instruments measuring a number of variables and data in the oceans to help us better understand what is happening on our planet. There’s no real good reason for these instruments to be removed. Or at least no one has shared any. The quote from the National Science Foundation’s spokesperson in the article reads, “aligns with N.S.F.ās wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.ā
In other words, they’re removing it because they don’t want to maintain it, which is kind of part of how science research works. Presumably the upkeep of this project (O&M cost in corporate parlance) as a legacy project had been accounted for in budgets, which opens the door up to any other number of reasons for removing it (like, perhaps because it also informs climate change research) that one can think of. You don’t just invest $350 million dollars in something that works and dismantle it to save a few bucks on maintenance. Or at least most business minded folks would not find that to be particularly efficient.
Anyway, the point is that this reduction is quite unnecessary. Yes, there are climate change research implications here. But there are also broader oceanographic, marine science, and yes, meteorological implications. Some stations help measure currents and provide added value to our broader understanding of coastal flooding, which is increasing all over the country. This continues a pattern that began last year by this administration and continues which is essentially death by a thousand paper cuts to the weather and climate fields (and science in general), implications be damned. We’re not being partisan here, we’re just being truthful.



















