Weather regulations unleash tempest in Senate

[Mike Johnston]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, it is unfortunate that the matter couldn't be worked out in a collegial setting. If the NOAA administrators are being non-cooperative and/or unaccountable, then perhaps the Department of Commerce should set up a panel to hold hearings and propose regulation if necessary. I just think a direct appeal to a single senator smacks of an end run. If there are truly instances of NWS abusing whatever monoploy power it enjoys, to the detriment of the public, then let's get them exposed and corrected. But, it seems like we basically have a federal agency doing a good job (a victory in itself) now facing the prospect of sweeping limitations in advancing the state-of-the-art of its communications to the public. If the private sector can do a better job of running a toll road, a school, or whatever, I say - let them do it. Normally, efficiencies and good management alone give the private sector a big leg up on government services. In this instance, though, is the NWS being cut off at the legs for doing too good of a job?

 

[rdale]

"is the NWS being cut off at the legs for doing too good of a job?"

I don't think that's where the issue is... The NWS needs to work on the things only it can provide - data. More 88D's, more ASOS units, more profilers, more modeling, etc. Infrastructure and basic forecast / warning info. Put the money being thrown into NDFD and instead apply it towards data sources and processing.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Originally posted by rdale
\"is the NWS being cut off at the legs for doing too good of a job?\"

I don't think that's where the issue is... The NWS needs to work on the things only it can provide - data. More 88D's, more ASOS units, more profilers, more modeling, etc. Infrastructure and basic forecast / warning info. Put the money being thrown into NDFD and instead apply it towards data sources and processing.

But why? Why don't private sector companies spend the millions on new radars, surface observation sites, etc? It seems like many businesses want the NWS to sink money into providing data so that they don't need to do that themselves. Given a fixed budget, your statement means that the NWS produces more information that private sector companies can use, yet less competitition since it limits the methods by which NWS forecast can be expressed/released. If I worked in the private sector, I can see how this would be an awesome deal -- more data and less competition! However, I have serious doubts that this is in the best interest of the general public, mainly because I can't imagine that the motives behind much of this isn't $$. Since a business needs to make money, I can't imagine that some forecast decisions won't be made based upon financial concerns (e.g. "Chance of severe weather along the east coast today. Tune in to the Weather Channel frequently for up-to-the-minute details and updtate" on days with an objectively small chance of severe weather).

 

[Kiel Ortega]

Originally posted by rdale
\"is the NWS being cut off at the legs for doing too good of a job?\"

I don't think that's where the issue is... The NWS needs to work on the things only it can provide - data. More 88D's, more ASOS units, more profilers, more modeling, etc. Infrastructure and basic forecast / warning info. Put the money being thrown into NDFD and instead apply it towards data sources and processing.

The problem with more data, especially concerning radars, is the whole "not in my backyard" argument from the public. From what I understand, it was hard enough to get the current 88D network up. Further, if more money is thrown into data sources and the public doesn't see products being produced from the NWS from these increased data sources, the public will wonder where their money is going.

But here comes the private sector, asking for a buck, to "give" the public "its" products (in essence, their tax dollars go towards them being charged for something that their tax dollars ALREADY do--provide them with products from the data they help pay for).

Further, I see a problem with increasing the ASOS stations without putting them at airports from funding issues. I am pretty sure the FAA helps with the ASOS system since it directly concerns air traffic. Also, I bet maintaining a larger network of radars, profilers and weather stations woul d cost a lot more than the NDFD does a year. (this last paragraph is my own speculation as I am not really sure of the rock hard facts, though it seems rather logical)

 

[rdale]

"Why don't private sector companies spend the millions on new radars, surface observation sites, etc?"

Because that's the role of government! NASA does research, Boeing incorporates that into their 787. DoD put up GPS sats, Garmin sells the receiver. Why should NWS be any different? They should provide the infrastructure and forecasts / warnings from that, but should not be supplying specialized information to specific clients.

"I can't imagine that some forecast decisions won't be made based upon financial concerns (e.g. "Chance of severe weather along the east coast today. Tune in to the Weather Channel frequently for up-to-the-minute details and updtate" on days with an objectively small chance of severe weather)."

I don't understand how that would be connected with NWS not doing concrete-laying forecasts?

"Further, if more money is thrown into data sources and the public doesn't see products being produced from the NWS from these increased data sources, the public will wonder where their money is going. "

Why wouldn't they see it? The display would still be on their NWS homepage. The warnings would still come from the radar, and now you get better warnings because you have better coverage.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Originally posted by rdale
I don't think that's where the issue is... The NWS needs to work on the things only it can provide - data.

Perhaps it does need to work on providing more and better data, but since when did analysis, interpretation and effective communication to the public get removed from the job description of a public meteorologist? The NWS has always been, and hopefully always will be, more than just a data feed. After all, their job is to forecast the weather and disseminate their service in the most effective manner possible. Now, are we saying - let's take this job and cut it into 2 pieces? I'm not sure I like the effect this might have on the morale of a professional.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Originally posted by rdale
\"Why don't private sector companies spend the millions on new radars, surface observation sites, etc?\"

Because that's the role of government! NASA does research, Boeing incorporates that into their 787. DoD put up GPS sats, Garmin sells the receiver. Why should NWS be any different? They should provide the infrastructure and forecasts / warnings from that, but should not be supplying specialized information to specific clients.

The core mission og NASA is to go to space. NASA's research into technologies is in order to go into space and do science there.

The core mission of our military is to defend our country. Our military created the GPS system to improve C3I and to allow for new forms of guided weaponry.

In both cases, the private industry's benefit is an indirect consequence of the core missions of each government agency. NASA did not do all that research so that Boeing could benefit (and most of the benefits that Boeing gets are through the things that THEY learn as they're building the rockets that will go into space... for NASA.) DOD did not put up the GPS system so that hikers could find their way in the Alps or so that we could navigate our way around the plains with Delorme -- they put it up in the air to help kill people, which is what they do. If the time ever comes when world war looks imminent, the entire GPS network will be scrambled. At heart, it's a military system designed for military application.

What you're suggesting is that NWS install more data collection devices for the ONLY purpose of giving private industry more data to play with -- not so that they (the NWS) can create better forcasts. You're asking them to do it because free is cheaper than not free, and the private weather industry wants these things for free. You're asking NASA to build rockets just for the hell of it so that Boeing stays profitable and you're asking our military to send up satellites for the sole purpose of helping private industry.

*spelling edit*

 

[John Erwin]

Originally posted by rdale
\"NASA does research, Boeing incorporates that into their 787. DoD put up GPS sats, Garmin sells the receiver.

Those entities (especially NASA.. DoD is a bit different) don't have "gag" orders on the magnitude of what this bill is proposing, with the exception of items that might be considered "important to national security".

Look at it this way; what if NASA (or JPL or other affiliations) were not allowed to show us pictures of MARS? Titan? Other good stuff... what if we were only allowed to view this material or data from a paid source (NEW! The UNIVERSE Channel!) Sure, you can say we pay for it via our cable/satellite feeds etc... however that's just the medium.. similar to what we use the internet for to get our NWS data.

 

[rdale]

"After all, their job is to forecast the weather and disseminate their service in the most effective manner possible."

Correct. NDFD was not created for that purpose, it was created to compete with AccuWeather / TV Stations / etc. that provide hourly/3hr gridpoint outlooks.

"Now, are we saying - let's take this job and cut it into 2 pieces?"

Missing that comparison... Forecasts and watches and warnings would still be there. GIS weather info and NDFD likely not.

"In both cases, the private industry's benefit is an indirect consequence of the core missions of each government agency."

But you are saying NASA should have held this in, since private sector will benefit? They have a large department dedicated to getting NASA "spinoffs" into the business sector. And DoD should scramble GPS all the time so Garmin would need to build their own network?

"not so that they (the NWS) can create better forcasts."

Are you saying that my post advocates NWS installing more doppler radars but not looking at the data themselves? I never said anything of the like. I fully expect NWS to utilize all the data sources available for creating better forecasts. I said that if we have more dopplers, EVERYONE will do a better job at protecting the public. I don't believe the dew point at 7pm five days from now is more important that filling in the radar holes. Guess that's where we disagree, I feel protecting the public from severe weather is the most important mission of meteorologists.

"what if NASA (or JPL or other affiliations) were not allowed to show us pictures of MARS? Titan?"

Most data that comes back from the probes is held for a year for the primary investigator. Only selected data (like images) is released publicly.

"similar to what we use the internet for to get our NWS data"

And you would still use the Internet to get your NWS data even if this bill came into play. What am I missing? Why do people think they'll stop getting zones or watches or warnings or doppler imagery? That's never been proposed and even if so the Sec of Commerce would have to go along with it. Do you realistically believe our government would conclude that the Internet is not to be used by NWS? That's quite a stretch.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

not so that they (the NWS) can create better forcasts.

Are you saying that my post advocates NWS installing more doppler radars but not looking at the data themselves? I never said anything of the like. I fully expect NWS to utilize all the data sources available for creating better forecasts. I said that if we have more dopplers, EVERYONE will do a better job at protecting the public. I don't believe the dew point at 7pm five days from now is more important that filling in the radar holes. Guess that's where we disagree, I feel protecting the public from severe weather is the most important mission of meteorologists.

Good lord, how can you have spent this long on the board and not understand the releationship between dewpoints and severe weather? (I'm kidding!)

If you want to spend money on one thing, you can't spend it on another.

Radar outages aside, the current network of radar is sufficient for detecting severe weather. Could it be better? Of course! And if you're for allocating an enormous amount of money to purchase new/more radars and for severe weather research, well, then I'm with you! Frankly, I'd like to see the phased array system move quicker. It's not like NOAA gets a lot of money -- the total request for next year is just a smidge over the cost of a single B-2 bomber, or about one thirtieth the cost of the "missile shield" we're not doing so great a job of trying to develop. If you're for reallocating existing funds to provide more radar so that private companies have more data to play with, I'm not with you. And given that you said "I don't think that's where the issue is... The NWS needs to work on the things only it can provide - data. More 88D's, more ASOS units, more profilers, more modeling, etc. Infrastructure and basic forecast / warning info. Put the money being thrown into NDFD and instead apply it towards data sources and processing.", well, I don't think I can be with you.

 

[rdale]

"given that your original argument was that the NWS should use their limited funds to construct more radar and data collection sites to benefit private industry at the expense of their ability to fund forecasting. "

Find that quote because I can't... I said at the expense of their industry-specific forecasting. The zones are fine. Nobody has a problem with them. It's the NDFD that is the biggest issue, and I didn't mean that to be confusing to you. NDFD is a national gridded database, from which all the other text products are generated. One other purpose of NDFD is to make sure that national forecasts are smooth, not accurate. I'm not a big fan of that either but we'll hold for another thread.

"Yes, that means everything from frost advisories to tornado emergencies. Everything else they do leads into that. There is no point in gathering data if they're not going to do that"

And nobody is advocating that they stop frost advisories or tornado emergencies.

"Put the money being thrown into NDFD and instead apply it towards data sources and processing - well, I don't think I can be with you"

Why is the gridded database more important that a doppler network like OK is getting? I just don't understand your reasoning. DO NOT EQUATE MY ISSUE WITH NDFD AS AN ISSUE WITH NWS FORECASTING. I never made those the same, you did. They are not the same. Forecasting = good, protected by this legislation, and probably better if the NWS met doesn't have to worry about smoothing his grids. NDFD = free competition with private sector meteorologists = bad.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

My apologies if I confused the National Digital Forecasts Database with forecasts. Clearly, the National Digital Forecasts Database has nothing to do with forecasts.

 

[rdale]

No problem. NDFD is the issue, not the public forecasts themselves.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

ABC news did a story on this tonight on the ABC Nightly News. They have an accompanying web article here.

 

[Will Astle]

morning all...

here's another link for a local Washington DC newspaper that did a piece on Senator Santorum....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20...93720-1956r.htm