Talk:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: General Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

problem with dates..

the article says the NOAA was started in the 1970's by richard nixon, but a picture right next to it shows meteorologists working for the NOAA in the "early 20th century". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.100.143 (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon restructured a whole bunch of departments and merged heaps into the NOAA. That picture is of the National Weather Service, probably back before the NWS took over the Department of Agriculture's Weather Bureau. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IT SAYS THEY WERE WORKING FOR THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, FOUNDED IN 1870, NOT THE NOAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.172.43 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at NOOAs home page they say 1807. I heard Thomas Jefferson started it but haven't found the source yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.81.46 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

found it

"NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200 years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the 1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes, predicts and protects."

from their magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.81.46 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate NOAA divisions from main NOAA page

Is there any objection to separating the NOAA divisions (for example: NWS and NESDIS) into their own Wikipedia entries and linking to them from the NOAA entry? If we add all of NOAA's divisions onto this one page, it is going to get really crowded. It also appears that NWS and NESDIS have enough info to be the start of a credible entry on their own. NMFS, OAR and NURP need a little more work to be more than stubs but they should warrant their own pages soon enough. Epolk 15:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to that - it makes sense to me. ottergoose 18:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Budget(s)?

Some mention of the annual budget figures related to NOAA would be useful. Allenc28 — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 23 October 2005

I read on think progress that they were spending $4Mil on their PR campaign but they just cut 700K from hurricane research--68.199.89.41 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

miami wikiproject

For some reason this article was labeled as part of Miami wikiproject. While NOAA is important to us here in South Florida, so is the Post Office, the IRS, and the Air Force. None of them should be a part of Miami wikiproject. GroveGuy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about adding some critique section?

[1] 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105075907/http://www.crcpress.com/shopping_cart/products/product_detail.asp?sku=L1023&parent_id=&pc= to http://www.crcpress.com/shopping_cart/products/product_detail.asp?sku=L1023&parent_id=&pc=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170420144443/http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/about-omao/leadership to http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/about-omao/leadership

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304113326/http://www.osd.noaa.gov/ to http://www.osd.noaa.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There appears to be agreement that the acronym is used more often than the full name, but there is no consensus on the important question of whether the applicable policies support moving the page or not. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration → NOAA – It is a more common name per Google Ngram. Also, NOAA is widely used in media, and it appears more than the full name in online search. NOAA is a commonly recognised abbreviation that is unlikely to have confusion. Given that NASA is an example, I am here to suggest this rename. B dash (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per NASA example. CookieMonster755 ✉ 21:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The nominator is correct. This agency is commonly referred to as NOOA in academic circles (see for example here). Den... (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. As an encyclopedia, we should use an organization's common name, not its abbreviation, as a title, unless the full name is rarely used, which is not the case here. Station1 (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:NCA states "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title". Both of these criteria appear to be met with this agency. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Similar to other organizations commonly known primarily by their initials such as NASA, NATO, UNESCO, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - these are always judgement calls, but the OPs ngram result is just too close to justify use of the acronym. The NASA ngram for comparison shows a much greater degree of usage disparity, and the NOAA case just isn't even close to that level. -- Netoholic @ 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Netoholic. I think that formulation of the requirement in WP:NCA that the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation presents a higher bar than being just more common in sources (well, most abbreviations will be more common than full titles). I don't think NOAA is there, and it's surely [edit: NOT] so world-renown as the counterexamples given. No such user (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With very few exceptions, we prefer full names over acronyms or abbreviations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration → NOAA – WP:COMMONNAME. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 16:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found that similar RM was rejected on 2018. Therefore, if you wanna oppose this requested move, it will mean that you are supporting to rename NASA to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. As an encyclopedia, we should use an organization's common name, not its abbreviation, as a title, unless the full name is rarely used, which is not the case here. Station1 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Wtf no, the common name of this is the full name, NASA is not an appropriate comparison. Reywas92^Talk 08:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, NOAA isn't nearly the same as NASA. Using the full title is apt.--Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google search of NOAA show 4.57 crore results, while National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show 4.21 crore results. Therefore, NOAA is WP:COMMONNAME. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, NOAA is not ambiguous with other organizations acronymed as such, therefore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. NOAA is also WP:CONCISE. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOAA is not a name at all, common or otherwise; it's an abbreviation of a name. And of course acronyms will always show more results than the full spelled-out name; that's their function, to allow multiple abbreviated uses once the reader knows the meaning. Frankly, I'm surprised the difference in results isn't much greater. We have to see if the acronym is usually used alone, without ever spelling out the full name, with the assumption that the reader will know its meaning. If it's not, the name is better use for an encyclopedia. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I'm not averse to using the acronym, the nominator has failed to show that it is the common name or that anything has changed since the last time this was discussed. Reliable sources, for example, continue to spell out the name of the agency on first reference [2] [3] [4]. Compare that to how reliable sources handle NASA [5] [6]. Calidum 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With a very few exceptions, using an abbreviation like this is a very bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Headquarters location

Currently, the headquarters are listed in Silver Spring, Maryland with a note of a needed citation. So I looked it up on the NOAA website and on the contact page (https://www.noaa.gov/contact-us), it has an address in Washington D.C. Is it located in D.C. or is that just a mailing address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallo3535 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing address is located at the Dept. of Commerce in Washington, DC (along with a few small offices). However, the primary operational/administrative headquarters has been located in Silver Spring for the last 30 years. Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a mailing address at the Dept. of Energy in DC, but maintains its actual headquarters in North Bethesda, MD. Somerset7 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2025 and the future of NOAA

From page 664 of the Project 2025 manifesto:

"The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA is not the "National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration". Literally not even the agency name. Yes, Project 2025 does say that exact phrase. However, if you had bothered to actually read into it, as explained in the edit summary I reverted you in, along with The Guardian, it means to get rid of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which is a branch of NOAA, and by definition, would "dismantle it". If you are going to actually write it on Wikipedia, you need to word and actually explain it properly and not WP:CHERRYPICK a single sentence and call it good. I am going to re-revert. You are free to add the information back so long as it is worded and explained properly. Saying "Project 2025 has proposed abolishing NOAA", while true, is cherrypicked and missing context, which is even cited by those same sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To help you out, I went ahead and re-added the content with the correct context and wording. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]