Weather regulations unleash tempest in Senate

[John Sickels]

to supporters of this bill

To any and all supporters of this bill:

Please answer this question for me.

If this bill passes, would I, Joe Taxpayer Weather Geek, still be able to

1) Free of charge, access all the current NWS data products I can currently access over the internet? Will I still be able to, free of charge, access SPC's mesoscale analysis page? All SPC forecasts? Medium and long-range model output? Or will I have to pay a private company for access to this data?

 

[Brian Brubaker]

Just a few thoughts from a politically conservative, amateur weather newbie who also happens to be involved in government (albeit at the local level).

First off, I agree about the wording of the bill being ambiguous. What constitutes a "product or service"? Is the SPC mesoscale analysis a product or service? How about radar loops? There needs to be more definition.

Being politically conservative, I'm always leery of growing government agencies. The NWS is obviously an essential organization needed for the protection of US citizens. As such, I think they should concentrate their limited resources for that goal. Government agencies, however, tend to make decisions to ensure their continued survival, sometimes at the expense of it's stated objectives. If the NWS were limited, it would allow more private sector research and development. And the more the private sector expands, the less the NWS might be needed. That would be the NWS's motivation for creating products that are already in the private sector.

Now, I do have a few questions regarding the NWS and private companies.

Do these companies receive their raw data from the NWS?
If so, do they pay for it?
If they pay for it now, would they continue to do so if this bill were to pass?

I guess what I'm getting at is that if the NWS is providing much of the data that private sector companies use to drive their products (and their profits), they should be paying the NWS for it. Maybe they are, I don't know.

I love being able to access all of the free weather information available from the NWS and SPC. However, I also recognize the capitalist society that is the United States, and for me, that is the trump card (after saving lives, obviously).

 

[Glen Romine]

Originally posted by Mike Smith

Glen, thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, I want to make sure you and everyone realize the web sites along with basic (\"core\") forecasts, etc. would not go away. Neither would basic graphics (say, the type used by SPC). The Department of Commerce would make the final decision.

Mike, thanks first for taking the time to explain your perspective in greater detail - as I think very few here will have background or experience from that viewpoint. To a certain extent - I agree with you on the need for some level of service barrier in the products offered directly from the NWS. But, the wording of the bill is extremely clear on what products will be made available if the bill passes: bill summary

Here are a few relavent snippets:

Prohibits ... from providing ... a product or service (other than a product or service for the preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings as described above) that is or could be provided by the private sector ...

Prohibits, as specified, disclosures by Federal employees of any weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning that might influence or affect the market value of a product, service, commodity, tradable, or business.

That is pretty darn clear wording to me..... Only severe weather warnings and forecasts can be issued by the NWS under this bill. Granted, it doesn't state the format of those products - nor provide any barriers on what could be classified as severe weather or what methods of dissemination would be allowable, which through creative interpretation by the Secretary of Commerce could preserve much of the currently offered content. But, in the spirit of the later statement, and your comments above how in your business you regularly issue your own warnings, etc..., it seems clear how if private industry pressed the issue after bill passage that this could be retricted to something on the order of a NOAA wx radio being the only allowed form of severe weather dissemination - or maybe even that would have to go away to strictly EMWIN. Further, the wording of the second statement would prohibit the NWS from sharing the data with universities and NSF funded agencies, as they could generate competitive products with the private industry with the data.

I suppose the shining light in this bill is the fact that no other senator is in support of it - currently there are no co-sponsors, and hopefully it stays that way as long as constituents voice there concerns.

As stated above - I think there is a need to establish fair competition - but this bill is not the right way to go about it in my opinion. I recall from a talk you gave back in 1997 or '98 that your vision of the NWS mission should be solely the collection and dissemination of data to the private industry. This bill seeks to do exactly that, so I understand why you and others in private industry are hopeful, but without significant changes to the wording of the bill it certainly won't have my support.

Glen

 

[Darren Addy]

Re: to supporters of this bill

Originally posted by John Sickels
To any and all supporters of this bill:

Please answer this question for me.

If this bill passes, would I, Joe Taxpayer Weather Geek, still be able to

1) Free of charge, access all the current NWS data products I can currently access over the internet? Will I still be able to, free of charge, access SPC's mesoscale analysis page? All SPC forecasts? Medium and long-range model output? Or will I have to pay a private company for access to this data?

With all due respect:
I realize that people do this all the time, but I would caution people from deciding the merits of something based only upon how it is going to affect the narrow subset of our personal interests. This does not allow for the equally valid concerns of others (such as the general public), or for any future additions to our own list of priorities.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Originally posted by rdale
\"If this data becomes privatized\"

You read it backwards... The NWS is keeping data private NOW, then releasing it delayed to the private sector / public afterwards. This bill would stop that.

Specifically, which data are you referring to?

 

[Mike Smith]

Glen,

You mis-remember my presentation. My position is now and has always been the following:

NWS collects data, processes it, sends it out to all in real time.

NWS provides warnings and essential forecasts for the public at large.

100% of the output of the NWS must be distributed to all, immediately.*

Private sector does everything else.

What you remember hearing was the following: "I think everyone would agree that no organization or company can be 'all things to all people.' [of course, it seems many participants in this discussion disagree with that position] If you agree, then how should the NWS view its customers?

Peer-reviewed academic studies show, even in tornadoes and other critical weather situations, almost no one gets their weather directly from the NWS (OKC tornado, May 3, 1999; 3% got warnings from NOAA Weather Radio according to published study by Kent State University). The public has spoken many times: They prefer to get their weather from the private sector.

So, since after 25+ years of promoting NOAA Weather Radio and the NWS's myriad of web sites has not moved the meter, how can NWS get the most "bang for its [budget] dollar?" (Remember, this is the agency that was telling Congress last month it doesn't have enough money for tornado warnings.) My suggestion was for the NWS to view its customers as the emergency management community, the media and the private weather industry. That would provide the most leverage on its investment."

So the above is not misinterpreted: Of course, the web sites should remain and so should NOAA Weather Radio to provide basic data (yes, radar displays), forecasts and warnings for that small percent of the population that prefers to get it directly from NWS. But, to leverage its dollars, I recommended the NWS concentrate its effort on three primary customers.

Mike

* People have asked me, "How can I say 100% of NWS products should be distributed and be against the National Digital Forecast Database?" There is no inconsistency here. IF the NWS does NDFD, it should be distributed. BUT, I don't think the NDFD should have been created to begin with and it should be discontinued. [/b]

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Originally posted by Mike Smith
Glen,

You mis-remember my presentation. My position is now and has always been the following:

NWS collects data, processes it, sends it out to all in real time.

NWS provides warnings and essential forecasts for the public at large.

100% of the output of the NWS must be distributed to all, immediately.*

Private sector does everything else.

That's an interesting idea for legistlation; perhaps you should have something like that drafted and then it can be discussed. That's not what's on the table right now, though, and you know it.

Of course, the system that you describe is very similar to what is already happening.

Peer-reviewed academic studies show, even in tornadoes and other critical weather situations, almost no one gets their weather directly from the NWS (OKC tornado, May 3, 1999; 3% got warnings from NOAA Weather Radio according to published study by Kent State University). The public has spoken many times: They prefer to get their weather from the private sector.

Of course they do -- it's much more fun to watch live towercam or helicopter video of a tornado than it is to listen to the weather radio repeat a warning again and again. But the sirens? Do you run those? When it comes to emergency services, I'd prefer the government to have a hand in the initial dissemination of the warnings. That's why the EBS, now EAS, was created to begin with. Media outlets are too unreliable to be soley trusted with a task that requires immediate and accurate survival information in an emergency. So the government breaks in everywhere, all at once. And in this case, has created a national radio network that is capable of setting off the alarms of listening radios, even if you're nowhere near a TV or normal radio. I'm sorry that this network is not specifically geared to serve you instead of serve the public but, you know, most Americans really don't care what you want in this issue.

So, since after 25+ years of promoting NOAA Weather Radio and the NWS's myriad of web sites has not moved the meter, how can NWS get the most \"bang for its [budget] dollar?\"

Oh, but it is moving the meter. Or are you just a panicky guy? If truely the NWS were only eating 3% of your pie, doing things like introducing bills and spending your CEO time trying to convince the weather forecast community on internet sites that Big Gubbmint Weathah was useless would be... well, a waste of your time, to say the least.

(Remember, this is the agency that was telling Congress last month it doesn't have enough money for tornado warnings.)

You know how politics works. The only way to beg for money, seeing as many government agencies (outside of the military) don't have the ability to slip money to senators like you do, is to paint the worst case scenario. Why do you think every time local budget cuts are brought up, the local police and fire department immediately talk about laying off half of their staff and setting fire to the city? The best way to get the public behind you on a government project is to make it sound as if the immediate consequences of the current funding regime is that the world will begin spinning so quickly that everyone and their children are flung into space where they will violently explode.

My suggestion was for the NWS to view its customers as the emergency management community, the media and the private weather industry. That would provide the most leverage on its investment.\"

And how don't they? Are you saying that the media and private weather industry has a hard time getting warnings and watches and the like? If you want, I can purchase for you a NOAA weather radio. That might be useful for a company like yours to have. You can find them at Radio Shack, usually for under $50. I'd reccomend buying one with FIPS codes; it might cost a little more, but there are few things more annoying in life than having your private weather company woke up by an alarm at 3AM for a %#@! flood warning four &^$# counties away.

So the above is not misinterpreted: Of course, the web sites should remain and so should NOAA Weather Radio to provide basic data (yes, radar displays), forecasts and warnings for that small percent of the population that prefers to get it directly from NWS. But, to leverage its dollars, I recommended the NWS concentrate its effort on three primary customers.

So, how is that different than now? This doesn't sound like a status quo bill to me. But good sport for trying.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Originally posted by Mike Smith

So the above is not misinterpreted: Of course, the web sites should remain and so should NOAA Weather Radio to provide basic data (yes, radar displays), forecasts and warnings for that small percent of the population that prefers to get it directly from NWS. But, to leverage its dollars, I recommended the NWS concentrate its effort on three primary customers.

I don't disagree...on principle...but again..it comes down to details. How I understand the bill is that the NWS would be forced to focus totally and completely on the 'three primary customers'. Thus eliminating funding and all activities that do not directly benefit those three customers. If they have data that could be used by joe public..like say...raw radar data..they would be banned from providing it to the public directly like they do today. Joe public would have to go to a commercial provider instead. That's plain stupid from my point of view. If they have the data make it available. What's so hard to understand about that?

If the commercial market wants to take the data and munge it, brand it, make it pretty and integrate it into something they sell...wll hop to it..lots of money in that market! But don't force those of us who want access to the same data to now have to pay through the nose for it.

I don't want something for nothing...I want equal and fair access.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Originally posted by Mike Smith

I looked at your web site. Welcome to the private sector! To illustrate my point above, I had to work for TWO YEARS to get the NWS to release its Level II data. Finally, Kansas' Sen. Brownback had to get personally
involved to get it done. Now, it is available to you, me and anyone else who wants it/needs it.

Yes but this is exactly where I think we differ. I simply provide the data in the same vein as the NWS provides L3 data. I would in fact close my doors and refund the money to all my customers if the NWS made the data available tomorrow. As I, incidently, think they should strive to do. As a not-for-profit I don't think you can compare me with Baron's or the like.

Might I also point out that I think this bill has a snow balls chance in hell of passing which is why I've stayed out of the discussion on other boards. I think it was a grand standing move by the senator to make his home state residents happy..nothing wrong with that.

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Originally posted by Mike Smith

Re: Charley. Vortex messages used to be immediate. Once the NWS started competing, the vortex messages started to be delayed. Every vortex message we received in 2004 was delayed.

I noticed this evening that NHC's web site has a page trying to explain the apparent delay in VORTEX message receipt:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutrecon.shtml

I don't look at the VORTEX messages enough to know when they are considered to be "delayed".

Chris G.

 

[Mike Smith]

Chris,

I had not seen this and appreciate you bringing it to our attention, but I have to ask the following questions:

1) If the NHC forecasters had "conversational" (i.e., before the vortex message was issued) data indicating Charley had strengthed from Cat. 2 to 4, why didn't they immediately send out a two sentence "tropical cyclone discussion" with that information instead of setting up a press conference?

2) Why hasn't this been a problem in the past?

3) Why is it, most of the time, the vortex message (with a time stamp indicating it is delayed more than 20 minutes) comes out AFTER the advisory containing the data from the vortex message? Again, this has not been the case in the past.

4) If the QC is important enough to delay transmission of the vortex message, why is the data good enough for NHC forecasters to base their advisories on?

There is an important public safety issue here. A hurricane moving ashore and rapidly strengthing two categories is a very important piece of news. The NWS should get its data out immediately. If it wants to have a press conference later, fine.

While on the subject of time-delayed hurricane data, the NWS should release its high resolution wind analysis in REAL TIME. They admit they intentionally time-delay this data because it is "experimental" -- for eight years!

Mike

 

[Jack Carlson]

Here are a few points milling around in my head…

1st. Anyone think that this bill is good for the general public is a tool…

2nd. Do not try to insult my intelligence about how this will help create and speed up the process in which new products will be developed, this is only about the all mighty dollar..

3rd. How the government can screw up is beyond me, they waste millions of dollars in so many areas, and when they seem to have a decent product (NWS) they want to limit its capabilities...

4th. This is my personal rant so don't bother trying to tell me differently with some long tirade about how I am working for the lowest common denominator ( someone has too)...

Jack

 

[Mike Johnston]

I would much rather see these issues worked out at the regulatory level rather than resort to federal legislation. Draft a set of proposed regulations, hold public hearings to get input from the private sector, academic sector, users of specialized forecast products, public citizens and any other interested parties. From Mike Smith's accounts, it does appear there are some instances of bureaucratic bottlenecks in NWS impeding timely flow of information here and there, but these should be management issues, hardly warranting introduction of federal legislation by a U.S. Senator.

As with many first attempts at legistlation, the wording is very broad and therefore open to a wide range of interpretation. For example:

(2) after the issuance of such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning to the public under subsection ©, willfully impart comments or qualifications on such weather data, information, guidance, forecast, or warning, or any part thereof, to the public, except pursuant to an issuance that complies with that subsection.

Now - how could the above be interpreted? Would this prohibit the NHC director from making informal comments and insights on a cable news network when a hurricane threatens the coast? The other day, I was chasing in Iowa. While watching a wall cloud come in, I asked a couple of brief questions of an NWS met who happened to be in the field. In answering my questions, was he imparting 'qualifications' to the official tornado warning in effect at that location, and therefore would be in violation of a federal law were this enacted?

The other interprative problem centers on the "mission" issue. It's easy to say NWS should stick to its mission of "protecting life and property", but - when you think about it - isn't that the ultimate value of virtually all weather information? When a private forecasting firm makes a proprietary 60-day forecast to an agribusiness client considering whether to hedge its position (and thereby protect its assets) with a soybean futures contract, isn't the objective to protect property? Sure, maybe an hourly dewpoint observation may not typically bear on protection of life, but if you or I, as interested weather observers, see an anomaly based on such an observation 40 miles south of an official tornado watch box, and call family in the area to give them a "heads up", suddenly that information takes on a whole new dimension of value.

The basic message of the bill seems to be: just give us the data, and leave the analysis, interpretation, and communication up to us, thank you very much. To me, this says that the NWS must be doing a pretty darn good job of analysis, interpretation, and communication. Perhaps the "value gap" between the publicly available information and the marginal utility provided by private forecasters is shrinking. In the public interest, this is a desirable state of affairs as competition is working to produce better and better products.

I suppose if the NWS were aggressively trying to develop and market specialized products at taxpayer subsidy, we would have a legitimate federal issue here. I simply don't believe this is the case. Like most bureaucracies, I'm sure they are somewhat protective of their database and channels of communication. If there are some problems here that can't seem to be resolved by upper management within the NWS, then fine, let's hold some hearings and propose regulations to correct the problems. But to have this issue debated and resolved by the highest legislative body in the land is overkill, and it is hard not to be skeptical that private self-interest is more at work here than public policy.[/i]

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Originally posted by Mike Smith

I had not seen this and appreciate you bringing it to our attention, but I have to ask the following questions:

I'm afraid I have no answers for you. Probably would be best to ask NHC directly.

Chris G.

 

[rdale]

"I would much rather see these issues worked out at the regulatory level rather than resort to federal legislation. Draft a set of proposed regulations, hold public hearings to get input from the private sector, academic sector, users of specialized forecast products, public citizens and any other interested parties."

It's been attempted through the AMS but the NWS has held firm on their stance that they don't "need to" work with the private sector.