Weather balloon launch cuts: An honest look at how it should impact forecasts

As we navigate the world right now, we have an obligation to keep our readers informed on the news of the day as it relates to weather forecasting. After all, if you are using this site and others for weather forecast information, you have an interest. But there’s a lot of news out there, and a lot of opinions masquerading as news. No matter your political leanings, the “zone” as it were is flooded and trying to piece together facts vs. stretched truths can be difficult in any ideology. So, periodically I think it helps to take a step back and assess a topic as realistically as possible. This is meant to be as unbiased a look as possible at one topic of note: Weather balloon launches being cut.

What is happening?

Due to staffing constraints, as a result of recent budget cuts and retirements, the National Weather Service has announced a series of suspensions involving weather balloon launches in recent weeks.

On February 27, it was announced that balloon launches would be suspended entirely at Kotzebue, Alaska due to staffing shortages. In early March, Albany, NY and Gray, Maine announced periodic disruptions in launches. Since March 7th, it appears that Gray has not missed any balloon launches through Saturday. Albany, however, has missed 14 of them, all during the morning launch cycle (12z).

Sunday morning’s upper air launch map showing a gaping hole over the Rockies and some of the Plains. (University of Wyoming)

The kicker came on Thursday afternoon when it was announced that all balloon launches would be suspended in Omaha, NE and Rapid City, SD due to staffing shortages. Additionally, the balloon launches in Aberdeen, SD, Grand Junction, CO, Green Bay, WI, Gaylord, MI, North Platte, NE, and Riverton, WY would be reduced to once a day from twice a day.

What are weather balloons anyway?

In a normal time, weather balloons would be launched across the country and world twice per day right at about 8 AM ET and 8 PM ET (one hour earlier in winter), or what we call 12z and 00z. That’s Zulu time, or Noon and Midnight in Greenwich, England. Rather than explain the whole reasoning behind why we use Zulu time in meteorology, here’s a primer on everything you need to know. Weather balloons are launched around the world at the same time. It’s a unique collaboration and example of global cooperation in the sciences, something that has endured for many years.

An example of a radiosonde. (NOAA)

These weather balloons are loaded up with hydrogen or helium, soar into the sky, up to and beyond jet stream level, getting to a height of over 100,000 feet before they pop. Attached to the weather balloon is a tool known as a radiosonde, or sonde for short. This is basically a weather sensing device that measures all sorts of weather variables, like temperature, dewpoint, pressure, and more. Wind speed is usually derived from this based on GPS transmitting from the sonde. What goes up must come down, so when the balloon pops, that radiosonde falls from the sky. A parachute is attached to it, slowing its descent and ensuring no one gets plunked on the head by one. If you find a radiosonde, it should be clearly marked, and you can keep it, let the NWS know you found it, or dispose of it properly. In some instances, there may still be a way to mail it back to the NWS (postage and envelope included and prepaid).

A radiosonde with mailing instructions. (NWS Pittsburgh)

What does the data from weather balloons do?

In order to run a weather model, you need an accurate snapshot of what we call the initial conditions. What is the weather at time = zero? That’s your initialization point. Not coincidentally, weather models are almost always run at 12z and 00z, to time in line with retrieving the data from these weather balloons. It’s a critically important input to almost all weather modeling we use. The data from balloon launches can be plotted on a chart called a sounding, which gives meteorologists a vertical profile of the atmosphere at a point. During severe weather season, we use these observations to understand the environment we are in, assess risks to model output, and make changes to our own forecasts. During winter, these observations are critical to knowing if a storm will produce snow, sleet, or freezing rain. Observations from soundings are important inputs for assessing turbulence that may impact air travel, marine weather, fire weather, and air pollution. Other than some tools on some aircraft that we utilize, the data from balloon launches is the only real good verification tool we have for understanding how the upper atmosphere is behaving.

Haven’t we lost weather balloon data before?

We typically lose out on a data point or two each day for various reasons when the balloons are launched. We’ve also been operating without a weather balloon launch in Chatham, MA for a few years because coastal erosion made the site too challenging and unsafe. Tallahassee, FL has been pausing balloon launches for almost a year now due to a helium shortage and inability to safely switch to hydrogen gas for launching the balloons. In Denver, balloon launches have been paused since 2022 due to the helium shortage as well.

Those are three sites though, spread out across the country. We are doubling or tripling the number of sites without launches now, many in critical areas upstream of significant weather.

Can’t satellites replace weather balloons?

Yes and no. On one hand, satellites today are capable of incredible observations that can rival weather balloons at times. And they also cover the globe constantly, which is important. That being said, satellites cannot completely replace balloon launches. Why? Because the radiosonde data those balloon launches give us basically acts as a verification metric for models in a way that satellites cannot. It also helps calibrate derived satellite data to ensure that what the satellite is seeing is recorded correctly.

But in general, satellites cannot yet replace weather balloons. They merely act to improve upon what weather balloons do. A study done in the middle part of the last decade found that wind observations improved rainfall forecasts by 30 percent. The one tool at that time that made the biggest difference in improving the forecast were radiosondes. Has this changed since then? Yes, almost certainly. Our satellites have better resolution, are capable of getting more data, and send data back more frequently. So certainly it’s improved some. But enough? That’s unclear.

An analysis done more recently on the value of dropsondes (the opposite of balloon launches; this time the sensor is dropped from an aircraft instead of launched from the ground) in forecasting west coast atmospheric rivers showed a marked improvement in forecasts when those targeted drops occur. Another study in 2017 showed that aircraft observations actually did a good job filling gaps in the upper air data network. Even with aircraft observations, there were mixed studies done in the wake of the COVID-19 reduction in air travel that suggested no impact could be detected above usual forecast error noise or that there was some regional degradation in model performance.

The element with the second highest impact on the NASA GEOS model? Radiosondes.
(NASA)

But to be quite honest, there have not been a whole lot of studies that I can find in recent years that assess how the new breed of satellites has (or has not) changed the value of upper air observations. The NASA GEOS model keeps a record of what data sources are of most impact to model verification with respect to 24 hour forecasts. Number two on the list? Radiosondes. This could be considered probably a loose comp to the GFS model, one of the major weather models used by meteorologists globally.

What’s the verdict?

In reality, the verdict in all this is to be determined, particularly statistically. Will it make a meaningful statistical difference in model accuracy? Over time, yes probably, but not in ways that most people will notice day to day.

However, based on 20 years of experience and a number of conversations about this with others in the field, there are some very real, very serious concerns beyond statistics. One thing is that the suspended weather balloon launches are occurring in relatively important areas for weather impacts downstream. A missed weather balloon launch in Omaha or Albany won’t impact the forecast in California. But what if a hurricane is coming? What if a severe weather event is coming? You’ll definitely see impacts to forecast quality during major, impactful events. At the very least, these launch suspensions will increase the noise to signal ratio with respect to forecasts.

In other words, there may be situations where you have a severe weather event expected to kickstart in one place but the lack of knowing the precise location of an upper air disturbance in the Rockies thanks to a suspended launch from Grand Junction, CO will lead to those storms forming 50 miles farther east than expected. In other words, losing this data increases the risk profile for more people in terms of knowing about weather, particularly high impact weather.

A map of what’s happening 20,000 feet over our heads this morning, showing a strong disturbance exiting an area where upper air observations were sparse yesterday and this morning. An example of a situation where those would be helpful. (Tropical Tidbits)

Let’s say we have a hurricane in the Gulf that is rapidly intensifying, and we are expecting it to turn north and northeast thanks to a strong upper air disturbance coming out of the Rockies, leading to landfall on the Alabama coast. What if the lack of upper air observations has led to that disturbance being misplaced by 75 miles. Now, instead of Alabama, the storm is heading toward New Orleans. Is this an extreme example? Honestly, I don’t think it is as extreme as you think. We often have timing and amplitude forecast issues with upper air disturbances during hurricane season, and the reality is that we may have to make some more frequent last second adjustments now that we didn’t have to in recent years. As a Gulf Coast resident, this is very concerning.

I don’t want to overstate things: Weather forecasts aren’t going to dramatically degrade day to day because we’ve reduced some balloon launches across the country. They will degrade, but the general public probably won’t notice much difference 90 percent of the time. But that 10 percent of the time? It’s not that the differences will be gigantic. But the impact of those differences? That could very well be gigantic, put more people in harm’s way, and increase the risk profile for an awful lot of people. That’s what this does: It increases the risk profile, it will lead to reduced weather forecast skill scores, and it may lead to an event that surprises a portion of the population that isn’t used to be surprised in the 2020s. To me, that makes the value of weather balloons very, very significant, and I find these cuts to be extremely troubling.

One addendum that I have edited to add: This is our current situation. It’s a static look at a fluid problem. Should further cuts in staffing lead to further suspensions in weather balloon launches, we will see this problem magnify more often and involve bigger misses. In other words, the impacts here may not be linear, and repeated increased loss of real-world observational data will lead to very significant degradation in weather model performance that may be noticed more often than described above.

The 2025 drying of Texas has commenced, so what does it mean?

We’re off to a fairly volatile start to spring in Texas, and the risks are not really coming via thunderstorms but rather via wildfire risk. For the third time in less than 2 weeks, there is a “critical” wildfire risk in Texas (as well as Oklahoma) today. This means the threat of wildfires is about as bad as it gets for some of these areas.

(NOAA SPC)

Not all of Texas is included in this risk, but much of the western half of the state, as well as North Texas into Oklahoma are there. The combination of dry ground, expanding drought, low humidity, and strong winds will make for a dangerous wildfire risk in those parts of the southern Plains.

Powerful wind gusts in the Panhandle, Oklahoma, and West Texas will exacerbate high fire risks today. (Pivotal Weather)

Wind gusts of 40 to 80 mph are likely this morning and afternoon, especially in the Texas Panhandle, the Caprock, perhaps the Hill Country and North Texas to the west of Dallas-Fort Worth through Wichita Falls and up into parts of Oklahoma. In fact, winds have already gusted to 81 mph in Amarillo and 83 mph in Lubbock today. Those winds will be hospitable to rapid fire spread should something get started, hence the concern. Additionally, winds that strong will be capable of producing some non-thunderstorm wind damage on their own west of I-35.

Additional fire risks will follow in the days ahead, including tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, especially in west Texas and eastern New Mexico.

How did we get here?

Texas has been in and drought as it often is, but in recent years it sure feels like we’ve been “in” drought more than out of it. Since the start of 2025, Texas has struggled mightily in the rainfall department. With the exception of the Piney Woods and parts of Southeast Texas near Houston, it has been a very, very dry start to the year.

Much of the western two-thirds of Texas are off to a painfully dry start to 2025. (High Plains Regional Climate Center)

Lubbock, Midland, and El Paso are all having top 15 driest starts to a year, with El Paso seeing less than a tenth of an inch of rainfall so far in 2025. Wichita Falls, Abilene, and San Angelo are all having very dry starts to a year, though not historically so. This has allowed for expansion of drought since the beginning of year, with the beginning stages of a rapid onset drought in the last 10 days or so.

Drought has expanded in coverage across Texas since January with a somewhat increased pace just in the last 10 days or so. (US Drought Monitor)

The recent bump in windy, dry storms has helped accelerate this process. According to an early March forecast update from the National Interagency Fire Center, “Confidence is increasing in a high impact spring fire season across the southern Great Plains. The expected weather pattern and its impacts to the fire environment are of major concern, and at least weekly high-end wind events are plausible through March and April.”

What’s to come?

It would appear that after this weekend’s event, we have another one (albeit less intense) coming around midweek next week, followed by perhaps another one next weekend. In fact, the 8 to 14 day hazard outlook from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center suggests worsening drought over the next 2 weeks in west Texas and New Mexico.

Rapid onset, worsening drought is likely in western portions of Texas and eastern New Mexico over the next two weeks. (NOAA CPC)

The next two weeks suggest near to below average precipitation in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as well, with some areas likely to remain quite dry. This is not uncommon in a La Niña event, even one that’s winding down. But this is a rather significant event for a generally minor La Niña. Perhaps things can alleviate some later this spring or by summer. Otherwise, it could be a long, painfully hot, problematic summer in the southern Plains.

Austerity measures threaten to stall absolutely amazing, cost-saving hurricane forecast progress

Hurricane forecasting has never been better. We say that a lot, but the statistics bear that out, and last hurricane season was literally the best one yet.

National Hurricane Center track forecast errors have been steadily improving over the last 30 years, and 2024 set a new benchmark. (NOAA)

This week, the National Hurricane Center released a preview of their annual verification report. They rigorously verify their forecasts each year and compare them to the key tools that they utilize to assist in forecasting. And this year was a doozy in a good way. Put one way: The track forecast 5 days out in 2024 was equivalent to the error of a 2-day track forecast as recently as 2000-2005. Think about that for a second. They have improved track forecast errors by a whopping 3 days on average in 20 years. A 3-day track forecast today performs better than a 1-day track forecast did on average in the late 90s and early 2000s as well. The amount of improved lead time you have on storms today compared to less than 20 years ago is incredible.

Intensity forecasting is another matter. While it too has improved over the last 20 to 30 years, the rate of improvement is not quite to the level of track error. That said, a lot of research has been coming out in recent years with respect to rapid intensification, and one would expect to see these forecasts pick up further improvement in the years ahead. This statement will likely put off some folks, but sometimes the truth can do that: It is likely that climate change plays some role in the idea of chasing a moving target. This is especially true in recent years with extremely warm water temperatures in the Atlantic basin. How has this changed the behavior of rapid intensification? That in and of itself makes things difficult. So while the long-term average continues to go in the right direction, we need to continually invest in research and understanding of the mechanics of hurricanes to improve both lead time and forecast accuracy even more.

Intensity forecast errors have been improving at a slower rate and with more year-to-year noise than track forecasts, however the trends are very positive. (NOAA)

Within the report, the probability of detecting a rapidly intensifying hurricane in 2024 sat at around 70 percent. I don’t know what that was 20 years ago, but it was nowhere near that level. Per the report, “although RI remains one of the biggest challenges at NHC, it is worth noting that advancements in hurricane modeling and understanding of the science are making a difference in improving forecasts for even the most challenging cases.” Investment in research is literally paying dividends. As Jeff Masters noted in his discussion on this topic, these research improvements likely saved billions of dollars in 2024 itself, let alone over the last 10 years or so.

Some of the work that’s gotten us here has happened organically through research to improve forecasts and models, often funded by federal programs, but the bulk of this specific for hurricanes is likely attributable to the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project (HFIP). HFIP was established within NOAA back in 2007 after the very bad 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. HFIP goals are to improve hurricane forecasts, extend lead time, extend forecast confidence, and more. It’s interesting to read comments from Bill Read in 2008 about the HFIP and then to see the results we have in the 15+ years since. Our Houston audience should know Bill Read who is about as legendary as a meteorologist can be in a community. He was also the director of the National Hurricane Center from 2008 through 2012 as HFIP began being implemented.

A 2008 interview with Bill Read for the Tampa Tribune discussing the state of hurricane forecasting. (Tampa Tribune via newspapers.com)

The problem is always funding. HFIP got a nice boost back in the first Trump administration when the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act was passed by Congress. Millions of dollars were allocated to weather research with that law. HFIP was specifically cited in the bill as an area to focus on. And indeed all this money and hard work to improve these forecasts is now bearing fruit.

But we sit in a perilous moment. At the risk of getting too political here, the current “slash and burn” philosophy of cutting government spending risks halting the progress that has been made. Meteorology is sitting at a crossroads right now as it is: Physics-based modeling and AI-based modeling are now both entering operational phases together, and the work being done to marry the best parts of these different technologies is just beginning. The potential results are tantalizing. Forecasts will never be perfect. But if we can continue to reduce errors and improve forecast lead time, we can save lives, save property, and reduce the economic impact from storms. If the couple billion that was put into this effort led to the economy saving tens of billions of dollars from hurricane impacts in recent years, then how does cutting a few hundred million or a billion help improve efficiency, as is the stated goal of Department of Government Efficiency? It’s a simple math problem, and the math doesn’t check out, no matter how much of a deficit hawk you may be. If these programs added no value and cost more than they saved or added to the economy, that would be another thing entirely.

Bill Proenza was director of the NHC back in 2007. He had an interesting tenure, leading the NHC through a tumultuous 6 months. He was known for being a bit brash and for publicly criticizing his bosses, the combination of which led him to be let go from that job. That style may work in some sectors, but in the NHC, the best leaders usually cause fewer distractions. Regardless of that, he made a very good point back in 2011 during talk of budget cuts in that Congress He told the Miami Herald at the time that the short-term savings of cutting hurricane research flights (allocating $17 million in funding to the program it was under versus the $29 million it had been funded at) would come with higher long-term costs. This is exactly the problem. Your political ideology may color how you feel about cutting spending, but the simple reality is that when people without expertise in matters begin to cut programs without understanding them, they’re accepting higher long-term costs in exchange for the short-term gratification of “hey, we did something.” If one is truly concerned about budgets and deficits, they would look at this problem through nuanced lens. Could efficiency be improved in certain areas of programs or research and development? Absolutely. I’m sure it could be. Does the possibility of taking an axe to a program through significant personnel losses or funding cuts put us all at risk of poorer long-term outcomes both physically and fiscally? Yes. Is the prudent way slower? Yes. Is the slower way smarter? Also, yes.

The forecast improvements in recent years have produced amazing outcomes, saved lives, and saved the economy billions of dollars. If we pull the rug out from under this program right when it’s literally at its best, we risk halting that progress, increasing costs and burdens on federal, state, and local governments, not to mention people and small businesses in the path of increasingly complex and dangerous storms. It’s simply not the fiscally prudent thing to do. Many folks in hurricane alley share the priorities of the current administration, which is fine but it’s important to understand the potential ramifications and impacts to us all in certain instances and to make sure your elected officials understand that. Given what we’ve witnessed between Texas and Florida since 2017 or so, it’s in our best interest to continue to work to improve hurricane forecasts as much as possible.

2025’s hurricane outlook season begins, but what is actually known at this point?

It’s a very quiet week nationally, weather-wise, so let’s discuss hurricane season. It’s the time of year where some outlets in the infantile battle of “who called it first” begin releasing seasonal hurricane outlooks. I say that somewhat derisively, but sometimes it does seem like a never-ending battle we fight in this field: First and loudest vs. most prudent.

Did the sizzle fizzle?

Anyway, the pre-hurricane season season is here now. WeatherBELL, the outlet that said last season would be a “season from hell” is back for 2025, though striking a less foreboding tone. They call for about 15 to 19 named storms, 7 to 9 hurricanes, and 2 to 3 majors. Their idea of a less hostile season is rooted in the cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic. And indeed, if you compare the most recent available data from February 23rd to the same time in 2024 (with a few additional days added on either side), you can see things have cooled rather considerably between Africa and the islands, or the Main Development Region (MDR).

The MDR has cooled by anywhere from 1 to 2 degrees Celsius versus this same time last year, however the Gulf and the western Atlantic are notably warmer. (NOAA PSL)

While we may say “Oh, that’s good, 2025 is way cooler in the MDR!” the reality is that those water temperatures would still be at record levels had we not had 2024 and 2023 happen.

While sea surface temperatures across the MDR are running about 0.75-1°C cooler on average versus last year, they’re still at the 3rd highest level on record, trailing only 2024 and 2023. (Kim Wood, University of Arizona)

Has the Atlantic’s fever broken? It’s probably too early to speculate a whole lot on that, as what caused it to happen in the first place is still a little bit debatable. So I would refrain from making any grand proclamations about what’s happening out there. Those of us that follow sea-surface temperatures in the tropics closely in the run up to hurricane season know how quickly things can change.

The Gulf and Caribbean are still at or near records, however, which gives anyone living on the Gulf Coast or in the Southeast a little bit of pause. I certainly don’t want to undersell what’s happening there, but it’s only February 26th. A warm Gulf in spring has not been uncommon in recent years. In fact, if you compare the March through May sea-surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico over the last 10 years (2015-2024) versus the 10 years prior (2005-2014) to that, you can see a notable warming.

Sea-surface temperatures in the Gulf and just off the Southeast U.S. coast have been much warmer in recent years than earlier in this century. (NOAA PSL)

Some of this is likely related to climate change, some of it related to whatever is happening presently with respect to warm global water temperatures, and some of it could be internal variability. The Gulf is slowly warming overall, but no season sees this trend happening more substantially than spring. Most other seasons are averaging about 0.25 to 0.5°C warmer, whereas spring is clearly 0.75° or warmer. My point here: While this is troubling, it’s also not guaranteed to continue at this record amplitude into the meat and potatoes of hurricane season.

So, our Atlantic SSTs are cooler in the MDR, warmer in the Gulf and Caribbean, and much warmer in the northern Atlantic versus 2024.

What of La Niña?

We are currently in a low-end weak La Niña event. Historically, this will end up near the bottom (or “least cold”) of the list of La Niña events since 1950.

An extremely weak La Niña event may be about to peak with a fluctuation back to neutral, or La Nada conditions later this spring. (NOAA Climate.gov blog)

Will we end up seeing a flip to El Niño this summer? Well, your guess is as good as mine. When we look at the EU’s Copernicus program chart of multi-ensemble forecasts for El Niño, we see the several hundred members skew toward an average near zero, which would keep us generally close to ENSO neutral (La Nada) conditions heading into spring. If you want to squint, you may be able to see a 55/45 split toward El Niño over La Niña but that may be presumptive.

The forecast heading into spring and summer shows most models congregating near ENSO neutral/La Nada conditions in tropical Pacific. (EU Copernicus program)

Remember, La Niña was expected last summer, and those cooling events in the tropical Pacific are extremely highly correlated to active Atlantic hurricane seasons. That, combined with the raging warm water temperatures led to the catastrophic forecasts last season. This year we are unlikely to have La Niña during hurricane season, though we may end up with limited signal from the tropical Pacific overall. We will still have very warm water temperatures, but they won’t be as doomsday looking as last year.

So putting those points together: Cooler Atlantic SSTs, a weakening already weak La Niña trending to neutral, and I think you have a recipe for what should be above average hurricane season outlooks from anyone issuing them in the coming weeks. However, they will not be anywhere near last year’s numbers. Is that good? Bad? I don’t know; this meteorologist tends to think seasonal hurricane outlooks are not particularly valuable. But the appetite for them is insatiable. Last year’s hurricane forecasts mostly just snuck into the lower end of the verified ranges and the worst-case seasonal forecast outcomes were not even close to being realized. But it ended up being the third costliest hurricane season on record in the Atlantic. So were the forecasts wrong? Or were they right because it did end up being such a bad year even though the numbers weren’t realized? Does it even matter?

Whatever the seasonal forecasters say in the weeks ahead, our messaging here remains consistent: You should prepare for every hurricane season the same way, as if that will be the year the storm comes to you. And as we’ve learned on more than one occasion in recent years, even “weaker” storms can cause dramatic damage. Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Much more to come in the weeks ahead on the upcoming season.