AccuWeather wants to shut down free data [Archive]

mikegeukes

06-28-2004, 03:22 AM

Here is the policy there are talking about, June 30, 2004 is the deadline for the public to comment on this.

NOAA Issues Draft Policy to Foster "Fair Weather" Partnerships[
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is requesting public comment on a newly drafted policy governing NOAA's NationalWeather Service interactions and cooperation with the greater consortium of public, private and academic weather and climate institutions.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service
Proposed Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Weather, Water, Climate and Related Environmental Information

The information can be found here:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/policy.php

Comments will be accepted through June 30, 2004.

Electronic submission of comments is encouraged. Please submit comments to fairweather@noaa.gov
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/feedback.php

Mike

mikedeason

06-28-2004, 04:28 AM

Maybe Joel and the boy's are finally starting to feel the crunch since the days of NIDS is gone and no one wants to go work in BFE, PA for under $20K a year. Couple that with some of the most unimaginative"innovations" in the world of private meteorology and it's a recipe for the demise of a once powerful and influential company. Maybe they could cut cost and increase margin by recycling all the hot air that comes out of Bastardi's mouth each day.

Sorry Crappuweater, the genie's out of the bottle and there's enough of us to make noise to make sure it doesn't go back in. If you guys want to stay around and maintain relevancy, how about some true innovations of your own?

Regards,

Mike

Tim Vasquez

06-28-2004, 10:34 AM

Here is where AccuWeather is telling its friends to comment (I believe against) the NWS proposal. Perhaps we on Stormtrack should speak up in favor of it and voice our support for free data (already paid by taxpayers). Note that there are only a couple of days left to respond.

I haven't read through this whole controversy, so if anyone is more familiar with this thing (Rob Dale? others?) please elaborate for us. Based on how the Fair Weather policy is worded it is kind of difficult to figure the exact intent and aim.

Once we are settled on where we stand I'll send out letters to all the contacts below and hope others will do the same. I do know that what we have with free radar data, model data on UCAR, GRIB for PCGRIDDS32, and of course METAR data we shouldn't give an inch on, lest we lose a yard.

Tim

1. Official comment address:
fairweather@noaa.gov

2.Copies should go to:
General D.L. Johnson
Director of the National Weather Service
DL.Johnson@noaa.gov

Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Under Secretary of Commerce and NOAA
Administrator
Conrad.C.Lautenbacher@noaa.gov

Secretary Donald L. Evans
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce
devans@doc.gov

3. Some key Congressmen and Senators; if you want a short list of these, please contact me.

4. Your Senators and Congressperson

Robert Dewey

06-28-2004, 11:36 AM

Robert Dewey

06-28-2004, 12:00 PM

I sent an e-mail to the above addresses concerning this issue. I also sent a copy of it back to the CEO of Accuweather, so so he can see what is going on, and how we disapprove of his actions...

Glen Romine

06-28-2004, 12:19 PM

These efforts to restrict data access always make me mad - I recall a presentation by Mike Smith (Weatherdata Pres) who flatly stated that he wanted the weather service to be nothing more than a data collection, archive and dissemination service as well as providing the numerical model output. Very much like the old NIDS - but they want that back and for all products. No text forecasts, definitely no graphical products, etc..., so that guys like him could pimp the data and charge the rest of us money for what we should get for free. He'd make a fortune, and in the late 90's was still paying sub 20's salaries to starting mets - probably little better these days. I have no regrets to seeing companies like these fall flat on their faces. It reminds me of the bottled water compaines that "filter" city water and call it natural spring water. Eesh....

Glen

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:00 AM

I've seen people say that AW wants NWS to only release info to EMA's / police / etc, or the AW wants NWS to not do forecasting but just run models, etc. All _far_ from what this issue is about.

NWS has always had in their law from 1991 that they would not specifically compete against the private sector. That law has been brought into play a few times - there was a NWS office in the midwest where the WCM had a daily forecast for radio stations done live from the NWS office, there are some NWS offices that used to produce forecasts for the newspapers etc. Nothing major and the law has always been there "just in case" the NWS wants to go over the line too far.

Now the NWS wants to completely remove that law from the books and their explanation is "just trust us." Nobody is looking to restrict radar data or pull NWS text forecasts from the net - we just want it kept into play that the NWS can't do things like providing a green screen and doing live remotes for TV stations or having mets charge a few bucks per month to send specialized storm forecasts to baseball stadiums and local fairs. Will they do that regardless? Probably not. But since they won't -- why is that section being specifically removed? We can debate the XML / NDFD / etc. all you want, but if the law that says "NWS won't compete" is being removed for no GOOD reason, conspiracy-theory-believer or no then there could very well be a BAD reason.

The AMS sponsored a webcast a few months ago (it may still be online) where the NWS rep was repeatedly asked why and avoided the question in more ways than our former President avoided his questioning. And about as far as the private-sector guy avoided talking about 14-day hour-by-hour forecasts ;>

Again I'm not defending AW as the company all private mets should strive to be like -- just saying that in this case they have a point.

- Rob

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 12:31 AM

What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio? Or a newspaper? Because it takes away from the private sector? Boohoo... Must there be privatization of everything? Why not have private law enforcement? ... There could be a boom of rent-a-cops...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a private sector, since they can obviously specialize to a particular audience or market. For example, the NWS doesn't currently have the resources to do TV broadcasts like TWC or local media. Additionally, specialized forecasts for a particular site or event may be better suited for a private/public company rather than the Weather Service. However, unless there's a giant increase in funding, which isn't likely, I don't see why the private sector should be "threatened" beyond which is a semi-public service in this country - the NWS...

EDIT: I agree that a lack of a good reason for the change (in terms of official reasons) tends to give fodder to the conspiracy folk... I'm not as knowledgeable about the politics of the NWS as others, so perhaps Rick Smith, if he's reading, can add his thoughts...

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:42 AM

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 12:44 AM

The worst example, I can think about when it comes to data in the hands of the private industry, is lightning data, it is quite expensive. Be nice if somehow the NWS had their own lightning detection system.

Mike

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 01:21 AM

"What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio?"

They are on the radio, or in the newspaper, for stations that prefer to use the zones read by a DJ. Odds are those won't be as good of a forecasts that a local met could provide, and that's the tradeoff radio owners have to make (free yet not necessarily the best, versus paying for something that likely provides better service as long as you are staying local.)

Why would the zones read by the DJ as good as forecasts that a local met could provide? I've heard many media mets on radio say nothing more indepth than the typical zone forecast... I don't get it... So a media forecaster can make a better forecast than an NWS forecaster? Morgan (KOCO) is better than Miller (NWSFO OUN)? ...

Also, regarding radio... In my experience, after the morning shows, many of the "forecasts" made by a particular TV media station either are just taped forecasts or forecasts read by the DJ anyways. Case in point -- I often tune in to a local OKC radio station around 2-3pm, and what is the "latest forecast"? Nothing more than KOCO's forecast, that was made around 7am, being either re-read or the audio of the meteorologists being replayed... "The showers this morning should end around 11am, and we should be in partly cloudy skies by midafternoon".. This I hear about 3pm... Hmmm... How is this any better than NWS zone forecasts? At least the zone forecasts are updated in the late morning. Many of the radio stations I've listened to do this, so it's not just an isolated event...

"For example, the NWS doesn't currently have the resources to do TV broadcasts like TWC or local media."

Actually they do... In Alaska the NWS office has a video forecast segment that is played on local PBS stations but open for anyone to grab and re-air...

That's good. I never thought about NWS forecasts on PBS (Public Broadcasting System)... I don't see what would be wrong with that... Granted, this isn't during "severe weather" or anything like that, which only occurs a minor fraction of the time anyways... PBS is non-profit to begin with, so...

rdale

06-29-2004, 10:05 AM

"Why would the zones read by the DJ as good as forecasts that a local met could provide?"

The NWS met is forecasting for a WIDE area. A private met has the ability to just forecast for the listening audience of the radio station. The NWS does not always update forecasts when minor changes occur, and they have to concentrate on a much broader area. The NWS met may be a hundred miles away from the radio station. If you are saying that NWS forecasts can't be beat then you've got blinders on. Note the use of my word "Could" -- I'm not saying that every private met will beat the NWS, but if they are doing live hits every 15 minutes in the morning odds are the private guy will be able to provide much more detailed info than a 3+ hour old ZFP.

"Many of the radio stations I've listened to do this, so it's not just an isolated event"

That's their choice... They can get a private met locally who updates all the time. Or they can rip-n-read the zones. Or they can do what they do now. It's up to the radio station's management, but having the NWS do all this for free is not appropriate when the private sector already does it.

"So a media forecaster can make a better forecast than an NWS forecaster?"

PRECISELY. Not "does" but "can" since the outlet for a private met is much more fluid than for NWS mets.

"I don't see what would be wrong with that"

Re-reading what I posted I don't think I said there was a problem with that, you said they don't have the ability and I pointed out how they do.

- Rob

Shane Adams

06-29-2004, 10:36 AM

I feel the same way about weather service as I do the health industry:

It should all be free, and the government should pay the salaries. So this puts me 100% in favor of the NWS on this issue....sorry private guys. Before any private mets jump on me for this, I'd like to add that if the government would do its job, there wouldn't be the need for a private sector. There'd be enough goverment jobs for everyone, and the information (which is often-times life-saving) would all be free - as it should be.

It's just pathetic that doctors and nurses and everyone in the health industry don't get the same treatment. No one should have to pay for any emergency/major medical assistance. But I guess if it were fair, organized crime (insurance companies) wouldn't be neccesary.

rdale

06-29-2004, 10:46 AM

You are talking about America correct? Seems a little strange to ask the government to supply your local TV met (a for-profit company), give forecasts to Northwest Airlines (a for profit company), let your local utility know when they need to buy more energy (a for-profit company ) and more... That's not what this country was developed upon! Might as well take this into other fields - get rid of accountants and have the IRS do it all. No more gas stations either - government should just buy those up and supply our fuel needs.

Sorry Tim - give up Weathergraphics and I'll drop RealEMWIN because Shane prefers the NWS develop software for PC users to plot weather data. No more chase hotline either - that should be a government service too...

All I can say it - agree or disagree with the public/private interface, that's the LAST idea I thought I'd hear on this forum!

- Rob

Jay McCoy

06-29-2004, 11:13 AM

I dont see any logic in privatizing our weather information. If a DJ is just reading the zones then it is already for a certain area not a wide area. That is why the call them zones!! I have been on both side of this as my dad was a tv met for 30 yrs and I have a humber of friends that are now tv mets. Where do they get the information to do their forecasts?? :shock: could it be the NWS. I am not saying that private companies shouldnt exist. On the contrary. Most chasers use one in one form or other for information out in the field. I use XM WXWORKS which is a Baron product. But for the general public its stupid for them to pay their tax dollars for the NWS to do what they do and then expect the citizens to pay a private company for that information. The private company should be footing the bill for the NWS then not taxpayers. Why should the companies get the information but not the public. The role of the NWS is to protect life and property by forecasting and warning of wx. They have to be able to get the information out to the ENTIRE public for it to be effective so for all you private mets that moan about losing money. The NWS Im sure is hiring but as long as I am paying taxes for the NWS I expect to get my information for free.

rdale

06-29-2004, 11:20 AM

"I dont see any logic in privatizing our weather information."

I repeat - NOBODY IS PROPOSING PRIVATIZING WEATHER INFORMATION. The NWS has a policy stating they will not compete with private sectors and it's a policy that has worked quite well for years. Now they want to remove that policy "just because." That's the issue here, nothing more...

"If a DJ is just reading the zones then it is already for a certain area not a wide area. That is why the call them zones!!"

A NWS met (one person) makes a forecast for the entire NWS area. A private met only has to be concerned with the radio station's listening area. It's a PROVEN fact that the smaller your area of concern, the better your forecast will be.

"I have a humber of friends that are now tv mets. Where do they get the information to do their forecasts?? could it be the NWS."

Where did TV mets pop up in this debate? I'm talking about private sector, of which TV mets are a part. In any case private sector / TV meteorologists do NOT get their forecasts from the NWS. They make their own. That's why they are meteorologists. If you are talking about a reporter / weathercaster who has no weather knowledge then that person likely gets it from AccuWeather or NWS or TWC, but a weathercaster is not considered a meteorologist nor considered part of the commercial weather industry.

"But for the general public its stupid for them to pay their tax dollars for the NWS to do what they do and then expect the citizens to pay a private company for that information."

Many do because they want the best information available. The NWS forecast is not always the best for their needs.

"Why should the companies get the information but not the public."

You lost me there. What are you referring to by "companies getting info"?

"The NWS Im sure is hiring but as long as I am paying taxes for the NWS I expect to get my information for free."

And you will and that right has never been threatened. Are you in the same thread we are?

- Rob

PS I think I see where you got your viewpoint from -- "In a story that appeared on Slashdot today it appears your friend Joel Myers at AccuWeather want to rein in some of the free data available on the Internet . . ."

I'd highly suggest you actually go to that link and read Mr Myers' letter. It says NOTHING about reining in free data, or XML, or anything of the like. Yes AW would like the NWS to do less, but that's not the debate Mr Myers and the private sector is involved with. TOTALLY separate issue and one that will never fly so no worries.

Shane Adams

06-29-2004, 11:42 AM

Sorry Tim - give up Weathergraphics and I'll drop RealEMWIN because Shane prefers the NWS develop software for PC users to plot weather data. No more chase hotline either - that should be a government service too...

If you're still getting paid, what's the difference? My idea was to keep money in the pockets of private sector mets by making them gov mets and keeping money in the pockets of users by making it all free.

I never mentioned software, which isn't life-saving info, which is the point of all this. Make all the software you want, create all the nowcasting services you want. But there's no way I'll ever pay for a tornado warning or a local forecast, and neither should anyone else.

I knew I should've just stayed out of this.

rdale

06-29-2004, 11:48 AM

"My idea was to keep money in the pockets of private sector mets by making them gov mets and keeping money in the pockets of users by making it all free."

There's something about running your own company which can give more satisfaction than saying you're a government employee. I just don't see how a TV station employing NWS mets would be an improvement...

"I never mentioned software, which isn't life-saving info, which is the point of all this."

NO IT IS NOT. Nobody is saying a THING about life-saving info. We're talking about going into markets served by the private sector today and saying "NWS stays out." You said private-sector mets need to be employed by NWS, Tim & I are in the meteorological private sector and while not wanting to speak for Tim I doubt we want to work for NWS.

"But there's no way I'll ever pay for a tornado warning or a local forecast, and neither should anyone else."

And this thread has nothing to do with paying for a tornado warning or a local forecast. Nobody has ever suggested you do that. The CWSA just wants NWS to keep the language that states they won't compete with private sector mets - which is unrelated to tornado warnings and zone forecast.

- Rob

PS I realize I incorrectly labeled Barry Myers from AccuWeather as Dr Myers -- Barry is the author of the letters referenced in Tim's post, not Joel (Dr) the owner of AW.

Robert Dewey

06-29-2004, 11:54 AM

I am all for the private sector. They can localize the forecast for specific areas, and update as often as need. The NWS uses a large County Warning Area, and can't be as local as say a private sector who forecasts exclusively for chasers OR exculsively for a local lawn business.

I am also for the NWS. They provide great guidance products and forecasts for those who wish to not pay for the information.

The kind of "private" sector I am against is Accuweather. Awhile back, they were distributing NWS Zone Forecasts and calling them their own. They also want to try and stop the flow of free data (NEXRAD, etc.) and go back to the WSI days (at least thats what I got out of that article). I do not want to see this happen. To sum it up, I am all for the private sectors who don't play the game of Monopoly.

rdale

06-29-2004, 11:57 AM

"They also want to try and stop the flow of free data (NEXRAD, etc.) and go back to the WSI days (at least thats what I got out of that article)."

I have no fear you got that wrong... Can you post the exact portion that shows it? I've received dozens of emails from Barry and others in the CWSA over the past few months and have yet to hear anyone ask for that or anything similar.

- Rob

Glen Romine

06-29-2004, 12:01 PM

Ok Rob, so you are suggesting that the private industry wants to preserve a "no competition" clause. So what exactly does that mean to you? By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition? What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk? Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? I disagree if so, as I think it is the burden of the private met industry to value add to what is made publicly available. I think the NWS should give out whatever they feel is appropriate to meet their mission (limits established by the Department of Commerce), and if the private industry can go beyond this and generate a market - that's great.

Glen

mikedeason

06-29-2004, 12:06 PM

Reading between the lines, it appears to me that the main issue boils down to the NFDB:

January 8, 2004 CWSA Response to NRC Fair Weather

NRC Recommendation # 5

The NWS should make its data and products available in internet accessible digital form. Information held in digital databases should be based on widely recognized standards, formats, and metadata descriptions to ensure that data from different observing platforms, databases, and models can be integrated and used by all interested parties in the weather and climate enterprise.

CWSA Position Statement

CWSA endorses the dissemination of all NWS data and information (including experimental) in real time without delay in Internet accessible digital form to the private sector for distribution to the public in formats that are appropriate to carry out a properly defined NWS mission. The digital database should not be used to allow the NWS to expand beyond its core mission, jeopardize the existing infrastructure, or enter areas creating publicly-funded competition with the Commercial Weather Industry.

The NFDB is not a "value added" product, so the the CWSA's paranoid contention that it alone will compete with commercial weather services is simply ludicrous. Just like any other form of raw, digital data it's useless in the hands of the layman as well as the meteorologist without the proper display/visualization tools. If the CWSA is against this form of dissemination of weather information, then they should be rallying against the open dissemination of model data as well.

Again, while I won't necessarily toot the NWS' horn, I'm seeing little innovation coming from the private sector. 14 day forecasts parsed from the GFS/MRF MOS simply isn't innovation. The NFBD is. And that's what I see as being the rub for the CWSA gang. They need to quit whining and turn more of their profits into R&D dollars to "out-innovate" the NWS/NOAA and give the public REAL value-added products.

Regards,

Mike

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 12:08 PM

Rob,
I don't think you or other private sector employees need to worry about the NWS taking over the national weather market! They don't have the resources, flat out. As I said, they can't provide in-depth forecasts for airlines, as they don't have the resources ($$ , employees, etc) to do that. That's why we need private-sector companies! This isn't about whether or not there is room in the US for private sector companies...

If radio station management wants a weather forecast for their listeners, why not allow them the option to go for the free option? Well, it's not free anways, since it's being paid for by tax money. But to them, for a similar forecast, why not choose free? Why not give radio stations the choice to choose a public-service-like source or a source that charges for the use of their products/forecasts?

I still don't think I'd say that NWS forecasts for a particular city are worse than a media forecast. In other words, I don't think media forecasts are better than NWS forecasts (as you hinted). Yes, they MAY be better, but for that mattter, NWS forecasts MAY be better as well. TV/Media mets still forecast for a relatively large area (their viewing area) anyways. Sure, they can sit down 10 minutes prior to going on-air to triple-check their forecast with the latest info, but why couldn't a weather service employee do that?

Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees. C'mon now, if you're confident enough to forecast a high of 88 degree, over the NWS oft-forecast upper-80s, then good for you! But I think it leads the viewers/listeners to believe that your better than you can probably be... There is an undeniable range of error in forecasting, courtesy of imperfect surface ob networks, etc etc etc. I guess this was more a gripe about private sector weather forecasts...

Moving outside media mets... TWC and Accuweather largely rely on computer forecasts (Aw man, you mean they don't make personalized forecasts for eVERY single zip code in the U.S.?...lol), which would largely make them worse than NWS forecasts... Sure they may be adjusted for the East Coast (errr, I mean any large city...), but again, it gives the viewer/user a false sense that the forecaster is better than they really are....

Robert Dewey

06-29-2004, 12:09 PM

From Slashdot - "The National Weather Service wants to update a 1991 policy that limits what data it can put on the Internet. The proposed new policy makes putting free data on the Internet official. The Private Weather Sector wants NWS to provide its new digital forecasts only in specialized data formats and would like NWS to shut down new XML data feeds.

The proposed new policy makes putting free data on the Internet official.

I am ALL for that... I consider free data to be: NIDS, SATELLITE, DIGITAL FORECASTS, WARNINGS, ETC. Why shouldn't these be free?

...and would like NWS to shut down new XML data feeds.

I am NOT for shutting down free NWS products...

Granted, all of this is based on what an "anonymous reader" writes... So who knows. The above from Slashdot is geared towards Accuweather wanting these services stopped, NOT the others that are in private sector.

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:12 PM

"By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition?"

ZFPs are fine and nobody has stated otherwise. What would be wrong would be to put out a "concrete forecast" and let the concrete co's know when the humidity would be just right for pouring cement and how long they have til the chance of rain is > 40%. Or to call the NASCAR race and tell them a small shower is approaching so they need to hold cars in for 30 minutes.

"What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk?"

Sure. Severe weather and a large group of the public. Should they also call the local auto plant? No. Should they call the golf course? No. That's the role of the private sector.

"Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? "

NASCAR hires a private met so that someone is responsible - plus they can get additional information right on location. If the NWS blows the forecast there nothing that can be done. If your private met doesn't see the squall line 20 miles west of you - he gets fired and a new one hired. Just because a county is under a warning (re: Indy 500) does not mean that the track is going to be leveled. Having a private met on-site adds a lot of value. I do local concerts where I sit in front of the radarscreen and make some good money watching for showers. If the new NWS policy comes into play, the concert people can just call NWS every 5 minutes and get the latest radar update for free... I disagree with that.

"Granted, all of this is based on what an "anonymous reader" writes... So who knows. The above from Slashdot is geared towards Accuweather wanting these services stopped, NOT the others that are in private sector."

I saw that too, which is why I didn't post there because it is not based on fact. Read the actual links. Go to http://www.weatherindustry.org and see what the letters truely say. Do not base it on anonymous posts from disgruntled NWS employess...

- Rob

Robert Dewey

06-29-2004, 12:15 PM

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 12:19 PM

"By making your own forecast, when the NWS has already made a forecast for the same area (recognizing the regions may not exactly overlay), is this not competition?"

ZFPs are fine and nobody has stated otherwise. What would be wrong would be to put out a "concrete forecast" and let the concrete co's know when the humidity would be just right for pouring cement and how long they have til the chance of rain is > 40%. Or to call the NASCAR race and tell them a small shower is approaching so they need to hold cars in for 30 minutes.

Why would that be WRONG? I don't get it! Why is it wrong for the NWS, a PUBLIC entity, to make site-specific forecasts? I don't think this is too terribly like in widespread terms, again given resource issues... However, I don't think I'd say it's "wrong". How is a wrong to give people the choice to use public or private data? If they like private-sector forecasts better, then good! They'll spend the money and "buy" the private-sector products... However, I think it's worth it to at least give them the choice...

"What if a severe storm is heading for a major outdoor event, let's say a NASCAR race as this is a non-public enterprise, should they not contact the appropriate individuals to alert them to the risk?"

Sure. Severe weather and a large group of the public. Should they also call the local auto plant? No. Should they call the golf course? No. That's the role of the private sector.

"Is this not appropriate, to make the NASCAR folks feel obligated to hire a private met? "

NASCAR hires a private met so that someone is responsible - plus they can get additional information right on location. If the NWS blows the forecast there nothing that can be done. If your private met doesn't see the squall line 20 miles west of you - he gets fired and a new one hired. Just because a county is under a warning (re: Indy 500) does not mean that the track is going to be leveled. Having a private met on-site adds a lot of value. I do local concerts where I sit in front of the radarscreen and make some good money watching for showers. If the new NWS policy comes into play, the concert people can just call NWS every 5 minutes and get the latest radar update for free... I disagree with that.

- Rob

Again, I don't see how this would be bad? It seems that a lot of people feel threatened by this, when, in my opinion, I don't think they need to be. There WILL be a need for private-sector companies in the future, partly for the reason Rob gave above -- there's accountability / responsibility with private companies that allows for a hire/fire scheme. I'm, nor do I think anyone, is saying that there shouldn't or doesn't need to be private sector companies. HOWEVER, I think this is an example of people who make money complaining about competition from a source (NWS) that can do part of their job for free (wide-area forecasts, etc).

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:20 PM

"I don't think you or other private sector employees need to worry about the NWS taking over the national weather market!"

I'm not _worried_ but don't want them to remove the law that says they won't intrude and have no reason behind it.

"Why not give radio stations the choice to choose a public-service-like source or a source that charges for the use of their products/forecasts?"

They have that choice today. What I'm against is the NWS met's doing on-air forecasts from the NWS office, which the current policy prohibits but the future one does not.

"I still don't think I'd say that NWS forecasts for a particular city are worse than a media forecast."

Depends on where the NWS office is. If the office is in the city and the radio met outside, NWS probably will do better. I'm 70 miles from the WFO and based on my repeated verification vs NWS I do better.

"Yes, they MAY be better, but for that mattter, NWS forecasts MAY be better as well"

Totally agree.

"Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees."

That's the NWS policy now. Read the NDFD stuff (RDFxxx / PFMxxx / AFMxxx products) as they are predicting precise dew points at 7 days out... exact highs and lows for the next 7 days... cloud cover at 3 hours to the next 7 days... Don't blame it just on the media!

"which would largely make them worse than NWS forecasts"

Certainly - no debate there...

- Rob

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 12:23 PM

Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees. C'mon now, if you're confident enough to forecast a high of 88 degree, over the NWS oft-forecast upper-80s, then good for you!

LOL! The NWS DTX does exactly that - Forecasts exact degree!

Hmm... from ZFP issue by DTX:
"
.THIS AFTERNOON...BECOMING MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 2 PM...THEN SCATTERED SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS. HIGHS 75 TO 79. WEST WINDS 10 TO 20 MPH. CHANCE OF
RAIN 30 PERCENT.
.TONIGHT...SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 8 PM...THEN A
CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS DURING THE EVENING...THEN PATCHY
FOG. OTHERWISE MOSTLY CLOUDY DURING THE EARLY EVENING...THEN
BECOMING PARTLY CLOUDY. LOWS 53 TO 57. WEST WINDS 5 TO 10
MPH...BECOMING LIGHT AND VARIABLE. CHANCE OF RAIN 40 PERCENT.
"

Yes, they enter exact degrees in the Coded City Forecast, but that's because there is a need for exact degrees for the product. In products that the vast majority of the public sees -- Zones, etc -- temps are often given in either 80-85 language or "lower-80s" language... Heck, when there is very low confidence in the forecast, I've even seen "highs from mid 50s to mid 60s" for days 3-4 out. At least that CONVEYS a sense of uncertaintly, while private-sector forecasts would have likely gone with "high of 60"... This is more a gripe than anything, and isn't really related to the topic at hand, however.

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:24 PM

"Why is it wrong for the NWS, a PUBLIC entity, to make site-specific forecasts? "

Because taxpayer money is going to provide a forecast for a specific, profitmaking company... The government can get into ANY industry it wants. Would it be okay for the IRS to start doing all bookkeeping for free? What about my cop analogy? You are saying that's okay?

I guess it's just down to political philosophy and that'd take us into the "general chat" forum ;> I believe that the government should provide basic services to the people, paid for by the people. Anything extra should be supplied by the private sector...

- Rob

Glen Romine

06-29-2004, 12:31 PM

If the new NWS policy comes into play, the concert people can just call NWS every 5 minutes and get the latest radar update for free... I disagree with that.

Same applies here as to the NASCAR folks, they are just as able to dial up and get the live radar feed - but why do they choose not to? Same with the PGA tour - they have a met that goes with them to every event - but he makes them catered forecasts specific for their needs - this is the burden of private mets - if the concert folks are capable of interpretting wx data to meet their needs, good for them, they can save a few bucks. Maybe you need to provide instrument tuning guidance to the concert folks. Again, value add - there is a huge void that the NWS can never fill - be entrepeneurial, find these voids and fill them. The NWS is never going to give private catered forecasts to cement industry or any other - but those industries are certainly welcome to access the info and figure out how to use it if they want. If they don't need a met to get the level of info they need - then they shouldn't be obligated to have to a pay for the information anyway.

Glen

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:33 PM

Robert Dewey

06-29-2004, 12:35 PM

Additionally, as a pet peeve of mine, many media mets still give hi/low's as exact degrees. C'mon now, if you're confident enough to forecast a high of 88 degree, over the NWS oft-forecast upper-80s, then good for you!

LOL! The NWS DTX does exactly that - Forecasts exact degree!

Hmm... from ZFP issue by DTX:
"
.THIS AFTERNOON...BECOMING MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 2 PM...THEN SCATTERED SHOWERS AND
THUNDERSTORMS. HIGHS 75 TO 79. WEST WINDS 10 TO 20 MPH. CHANCE OF
RAIN 30 PERCENT.
.TONIGHT...SCATTERED SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS THROUGH 8 PM...THEN A
CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS DURING THE EVENING...THEN PATCHY
FOG. OTHERWISE MOSTLY CLOUDY DURING THE EARLY EVENING...THEN
BECOMING PARTLY CLOUDY. LOWS 53 TO 57. WEST WINDS 5 TO 10
MPH...BECOMING LIGHT AND VARIABLE. CHANCE OF RAIN 40 PERCENT.
.

Oops, I'm wrong :lol:

Anyway, if the NWS wants to produce certain products, more power to them. If the private sector wants to produce the same product as the NWS, more power to them as well... Cause in the end, I make my own forecast...

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:36 PM

"Oops, I'm wrong"

You aren't - I think it depends on who's foreasting. I've seen them give precise numbers in the ZFP's out to day 7 on occasion...

Robert Dewey

06-29-2004, 12:41 PM

I can understand where your coming from on this, Rob. Government entities are not to compete against business. If the NWS were to start generating their own in office broadcasts, and TV stations were to start using them over the private sector, then that is competition. Things as of right now are fine the way they are.

After looking at the site you (Rob) gave me... It appears that the NWS wants to revise their 1991 Policy, and remove the section that states the NWS cannot compete with private sector (to sum it up). My question is, why would they do this?

Glen Romine

06-29-2004, 12:45 PM

But the new policy would allow the concert people to CALL the NWS every 5 minutes and ask for their interpretation / nowcasting...

- Rob

Sure, I could call them too, and what are they going to tell me? "Sorry, but we don't have the manpower to give you a personal forecast". I'm sure the goal of this new policy is not to have private individuals contacting them for information - but they should have the right to distribute the wx data in public consumable forms, such as the daily wx summary map:

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/noaa/noaa.gif

This is a lot more aesthetic than a pile of difax charts at the mandatory levels, and if they want to provide more customer friendly products i think they should have the right to do so.

Glen

rdale

06-29-2004, 12:47 PM

"I'm sure the goal of this new policy is not to have private individuals contacting them for information "

Then what is it? Check all the letters and you won't find one upset about HPC providing a national overview...

Glen Romine

06-29-2004, 01:26 PM

Then what is it? Check all the letters and you won't find one upset about HPC providing a national overview...

The HPC forecast is just an example of a derived data product. I could have just as easily picked this one:

http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/data/...26581c4d5c45b84 (http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/data/airmets/airmets_ALL.gif?PHPSESSID=d19da53e84560aebe26581c4 d5c45b84)

Here is a custom product for a specific industry (aviation), or you could argue that SPC's fire weather forecasts are too industry specific, or many other examples... They could give very nice detailed hourly forecast maps surface winds, overlayed with highway maps, and the transportation industry might find those very useful. Both public and private industry could benefit from such products, and if the NWS wants to make them - so be it. They should not be restricted to only providing products that noone in private industry is making available. This is how I interpret the drive to change the policy. Maybe this is incorrect - but I have yet to see anything to make me believe otherwise.

Glen

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 01:28 PM

"The NWS is never going to give private catered forecasts to cement industry or any other"

But Jeff thinks they should - and the kicker is that the current policy which forbids such competition will be replaced by a new policy that allows it. That's the crutch of this WHOLE debate....

"If they don't need a met to get the level of info they need - then they shouldn't be obligated to have to a pay for the information anyway. '

Agreed and nobody is saying they should. The concert place could easily get online and grab an image. There's more to forecasting rain than that as we all know! But the new policy would allow the concert people to CALL the NWS every 5 minutes and ask for their interpretation / nowcasting...

- Rob

Again I think that the folks should have a choice on where to get their weather info -- beit from the "free" NWS or from a pay-for private company. Obviously, and in cases that have been brought up, they may very well be better served by a private company. However, they should have the choice... Now, as for calling up the NWS every 5 minutes? Sure, it may be technically possible under the new proposed/revised policy, but it isn't likely. Most NWSFO's don't have the people-power or resources to be able to do that. And if they did? The region HQ would probably divert funding from them to other projects, since, again, it may not be an efficient use of resources for the NWS to make site-specific forecasts for private companies. So, while it gives a choice to the user, I don't think the NWS will do forecasts for for-profit companies as resources will limit that... And again, thus the reason for the need for private-sector companies.

LOL I do think this comes down to political ideology / view of the role of government. Excellent debate, btw! :)

Jay McCoy

06-29-2004, 02:09 PM

I dont think private companies have much to worry about with reguard to competition. The NWS provides its information for safety reasons and isnt looking to obtain clients.

One thing that was said that I will have to disagree on is that a tv met could give a better or more accurate forecast. In my experience most tv mets (not all) have a 2 yr degree but some do have their full 4 yr met degree but all NWS mets have a 4 yr degree and know a bit more than how to smile for the camera. Like I said I have a number of friends on tv.

Also as for the up to date or current forecasts. The NWS puts out short term forecasts comtinually when wx is changing and is usually accurate. if it is changing for the worse then that is when the warnings come in and they are ahead of even the private mets. The local tv cut ins happen after the warning is issued.

As for the "local" forecast compared to the area forecast. I am not sure if all NWS offices have the same type of forecast yet but in amarillo the forecast is "pinpoint". If I click on 1 area I get a forecast. If I click on a spot 30 miles from there I get a different forecast. it is time consuming for them but they have to do a forecast for every area specifically in the NWSFO warning area. Not just by county but by 3 mile grids so saying that a private met in another state or a local tv met could give a better or more personalized forecast is wrong. here is a link to explain this

[/url]http://www.srh.weather.gov/srh/jetstream/webweather/pinpoint_max.htm[url]

I will contiue to use certain private companies but also want my free data from the NWS.

rdale

06-29-2004, 02:36 PM

"One thing that was said that I will have to disagree on is that a tv met could give a better or more accurate forecast. In my experience most tv mets (not all) have a 2 yr degree but some do have their full 4 yr met degree but all NWS mets have a 4 yr degree and know a bit more than how to smile for the camera."

There's no such thing as a 2-yr meteorology degree... Emphasis on _C_ould. Could. And I was not referring to JUST tv mets, I said private-sector mets. There is nothing in the "air" of an NWS office that automatically makes them a great forecaster.

"Like I said I have a number of friends on tv. "

As do I, but I associate with most of mine at severe weather conferences / doppler radar training / etc. and I can name a few off the top of my head that can forecast better than the average NWS met.

"Also as for the up to date or current forecasts. The NWS puts out short term forecasts comtinually when wx is changing and is usually accurate."

Continually? Hmmm.... I never see updates more than every hour.

"they are ahead of even the private mets. The local tv cut ins happen after the warning is issued. "

Hold the bus here... The NWS has _never_ beaten me for a Tornado Warning in my viewing area when an actual tornado has occurred. The last event we had I broke in to alert people to a dangerous storm and about two minutes into my cut-in the county went red for TOR. That's the advantage of TV mets who are trained - they don't need to wait for someone at the NWS office to pull the trigger before warning people. Jay Trobec @ KELO, John McLaughlin at KCCI, Lon Curtis and more all are capable of being on the air prior to a warning being issued. There's a reason TV stations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the technology - and it's not just to display NWS warnings in a pretty manner ;> Whether or not all stations use that technology correctly or give their mets training is another thread.

"If I click on a spot 30 miles from there I get a different forecast. it is time consuming for them but they have to do a forecast for every area specifically in the NWSFO warning area. Not just by county but by 3 mile grids"

You are confused. They do not tailor the forecast for each 3mile grid. They pick a few points and contour from there. Contouring is _not_ point forecasting.

"so saying that a private met in another state or a local tv met could give a better or more personalized forecast is wrong."

It's NOT WRONG. The NWS met can be 50-100 miles away from the point he is forecasting for, and he has to forecast for a 5000 square mile area. The private met can be sitting in the middle of that point and only worry about 20 square miles...

- Rob

Jay McCoy

06-29-2004, 03:43 PM

Once again I have to disagree about certain things.

1 is there are a number of universities that offer 2 yr degrees in broadcast meteorology such as Mississippi St. and alot of tv mets have the 2 yr degrees.

2 is most "private" companies have an office somewhere where their mets do the forecast for my area when they are 1000 miles away from me when the NWSFO is right there. The tv mets are there also and have an advantage over a private company met.

3 nobody but the NWS can issue a warning for a tornado or anything else period. They can go on air and say they have spotted a tornado or a chaser reported baseball hail but they can issue their own warning. We had that problem here with a local tv met that was popping up his own warning when he felt it was severe and the NWS called him out on it and threatened to have the station license revoked by the FCC. he now issues "strong storm" on his little corner map instead which is allowed.

As for tv or private sector mets doing better forecasts than the NWS I dont buy it. Most mets I know read every outlook, discussion and forecast made by the NWS before they ever put their own forecast together. They usually spent 1-2 hrs building their show when a NWS forecaster spends hours reading models and writing discussions. I would put their forecasting skills and guys like some of the SPC guys up against any private met out there. After 19 yrs I would put some of my forecasting skills up against some too (and I dont have a degree just field experience which you cant get in a book). I am not saying all are good because I know a few working for the NWS and SPC and tv that couldnt forecast rain in a hurricane :lol: I think the biggest advantage a forecaster of any sort has is knowing the climatology and quirks of a certain area. I guarantee a forecaster in Atlanta or Chicago will miss the nuances of tx panhandle wx 75% of the time. it is one of the toughest places to forecast in the country. that is why the tv mets stay here for 20-30 yrs is the challenge and diversity (not to mention 65,000ft supercells.

rdale

06-29-2004, 03:57 PM

"there are a number of universities that offer 2 yr degrees in broadcast meteorology such as Mississippi St. and alot of tv mets have the 2 yr degrees."

Private-sector meteorology does not include 2-yr broadcast mets as their membership. If you want to work for a private met company or NWS and bring your 2-yr degree on the resume it will be rejected 99% of the time.

"most "private" companies have an office somewhere where their mets do the forecast for my area when they are 1000 miles away from me"

If you followed the thread that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about local private mets.

"nobody but the NWS can issue a warning for a tornado or anything else period. They can go on air and say they have spotted a tornado or a chaser reported baseball hail but they can issue their own warning."

I assume you meant "cannot" but in the end that's the same. Correct, I do not use the word "tornado warning." I say "my interpretation of the doppler radar tells me this is a nasty storm that could contain a tornado." I do not need to wait for NWS to issue a formal TOR to do so. You said that breakins don't occur til after the warning is issued and that is not the case.

"Most mets I know read every outlook, discussion and forecast made by the NWS before they ever put their own forecast together."

You again are referring to TV mets. I'm talking about private sector met. Can a TV met just read the NWS products and go from there? Sure... And many do... but can you make a name for yourself if all you do is go with the NWS? Nope... I never look at zones and discussions til I'm all done with mine, a 3-4 hour process. If the zones are way different I'll go back and look at my data to see what they see. If I can't figure it out, I'll call them up and ask in detail. If I agree I may sway mine, if not I'll stick. Staying with my original forecast has worked out much more often than not.

"They usually spent 1-2 hrs building their show when a NWS forecaster spends hours reading models and writing discussions."

Other than writing a discussion I have all the tools (and the same software) that a NWS guy has. I go to many of the same training sessions that a NWS guy goes to. Again tell me why the NWS forecast _has_ to be better?

"I would put their forecasting skills and guys like some of the SPC guys up against any private met out there."

SPC concentrates on severe weather at the national scale... I work on day-to-day weather at the local level. Two different fields.

Does that mean that if you don't work at SPC you can't be an expert? Chuck Doswell never worked at SPC. Al Moller - nope. Are you telling me that since they didn't work at SPC and one didn't work at NWS they are naturally inferior?

"I think the biggest advantage a forecaster of any sort has is knowing the climatology and quirks of a certain area. I guarantee a forecaster in Atlanta or Chicago will miss the nuances of tx panhandle wx 75% of the time."

Exactly. And if your panhandle skills had to move to Michigan and incorporate the lakes and Canadian cold air I bet you'd have a hard time adjusting for a while... These are things that national NWS offices or private met firms will NEVER be able to overcome, and the reason that local private mets can have a great advantage even over NWS locations 50-100 miles away. I've been here 6 years and always lived within 200 miles either in Indiana or Ohio before moving to Lansing. So I have 15 years of Great Lakes forecast. What's the average NWS guy around for - 4-8 years?

- Rob

Jay McCoy

06-29-2004, 04:17 PM

i agree with you on a number of those points and I wasnt refering to you personally and I hope you didnt take it that way. I am saying most companies with private mets do so from a national office and dont have local mets all over the country. that is where the local NWS office has the advantage.

As for me forecasting in Michigan. oh hell no I wouldnt even try to figure out lake effect. :oops:

Its like the wx channel. They are based in Atlanta and most of their forecasts (at least the ones that are close to right) are ripped from the local NWS offices. When they try and put together their own foecast for us such as their severe wx outlook they are wrong most of the time.

As for the 2 yr degrees I was refering mostly to tv mets. I know the NWS and most private companies require 4 yr bachelors.

rdale

06-29-2004, 04:19 PM

"I am saying most companies with private mets do so from a national office and dont have local mets all over the country. that is where the local NWS office has the advantage."

Agreed - and that's why nothing I said would defend the national companies ;>

"As for the 2 yr degrees I was refering mostly to tv mets. I know the NWS and most private companies require 4 yr bachelors."

Gotcha - they aren't considered part of the commercial weather industry so wasn't sure how they got into this thread of public vs private but I see what you are saying.

- Rob

Greg Stumpf

06-29-2004, 04:43 PM

My take on the public versus private thread:

Public weather services should provide the information needed to save LIVES (and personal public property).

Private weather services should provide "value-added" information to save other private customers money. At the same time, private weather services should maximize their own profits.

Therefore, can the private sector forecast for NASCAR events? Yes, if they are adding value to the otherwise free services provided by the public weather services. Can the private sector claim that the public weather service should be prohibited from making venue-specific forecasts? Absolutely not! The public weather service is protecting LIVES. Warning folks in a stadium from lightning has absolutely no bearing on money!

In other words, most private sector companies' primary motivation is to maximize profits (regardless of their marketing information), therefore they need to get out of the "business" of saving lives (unless they are adding value to public weather services through a public-private partnership).

There are countless opportunities for the private sector to provide services to weather-sensitive customers to maximize each others' profits. Why then are certain private folks wanting it *all* for themselves? Think about it.

greg

rdale

06-29-2004, 05:22 PM

"There are countless opportunities for the private sector to provide services to weather-sensitive customers to maximize each others' profits. Why then are certain private folks wanting it *all* for themselves?"

Where are people getting this viewpoint from? Have you actually read the letters?

"Warning folks in a stadium from lightning has absolutely no bearing on money! "

Nobody ever said that was off-limits. But warning folks that a light rainshower is approaching or that temps for opening pitch will be in the low-80's with RH of 45-50% and winds southsouthwest at 10 should be off-limits, and is under current law. It would not be off-limits under FairWeather.

- Rob

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 05:26 PM

What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio? Or a newspaper? Because it takes away from the private sector? Boohoo... Must there be privatization of everything?

Addressing the newspaper part.

For newspapers, why would the NWS would even considered doing forecasts for newspapers. Most newspapers weather is custom made with special graphics, forecasts, etc. Companies, like Accu Weather, The Weather Channel, Weather Central, Weather Data, do a good job in providing newspapers weather information.

Take the NWS OUN CWA, the Daily newspapers are: Ada, Altus, Ardmore, Clinton, Duncan, Durant. Edmond, Enid, Lawton, Newkirk, Norman, Oklahoma City, Ponca City, Seminole, Shawnee, Stillwater, Weatherford.

NWS GRR CWA the daily newspapers are: Battle Creek, Big Rapids, Grand Haven, Grand Rapids,Greenville, Holland, Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Ludington, Muskegon

If the NWS did a lot of daily newspapers within their CWA.s when would they have time to do other stuff. Bottom line is private industry is bettter suited to meet the needs of the newspaper industry.

Edit: Remember the local NWS offices usually have 10 forecasters that work 24/7.

Mike

Jeff Snyder

06-29-2004, 06:20 PM

If the NWS did a lot of daily newspapers within their CWA.s when would they have time to do other stuff. Bottom line is private industry is bettter suited to meet the needs of the newspaper industry.

Mike

I'm not saying that private companies wouldn't be better suited for particular tasks. In the above case, yes, private companies would seem the be choice. However, why not leave it up to the people who have to pay for them (newspaper management, buyers, etc) to decide! Maybe they don't want a glitz-n-glamor graphics from some public companies, and would rather save the money, do a less eye-appealing weather section, and use the money elsehwere? Sure, for resources, private companies may be able to do a better job at serving the newspaper market, I never said they wouldn't. However, why is it a bad idea to give folks choices?! This isn't even saying the NWS would want to do newspapers, again given resources.

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 06:29 PM

I would NOT like to see any privatizing in Aviation Weather. The Aviation Weather Center, the CWSU's and the various FSS provide timely advisories, forecasts, observations to wide variety of people. Also the WFO's provide local aviation forecasts. Only change I would like to see in the NWS is maybe have the CWSU's take over the local aviation forecasts to reduce workload from the WFO's.

Examples of the Private Meteorology sector is Aviation Weather.
Many private companies specialize in providing aviation weather data and forecasts to various clients. Visit various airports,the FBO's often have a computer avialable to look at weather data which is provided by private companies like WSI for example. Many major airlines have their own weather center with a staff of meteorologists, examples: American, Northwest, United and in the air cargo business: Fed Ex and UPS have their own meteorologists. The military have their own weather service.

Some examples of public and the private sector in Aviation Weather.

Mike

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 07:10 PM

You should continue to see growth in the private sector of meteorology, the field offers so many opportunities in providing services to clients. With hundreds of meteorology students graduating every year in this country, and the NWS is not hiring as much, when they reorganized back in the 90's. I can see more graduates pursuing a career in private meteorology. All depends on their career goals. Quite of few private meteorology companies operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to keep their clients updated on various things.

In summary, I have nothing against the NWS or the private sector, just keep the data free and add more free data to all of us.

Mike

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 08:01 PM

Talking about private vs public. I came upon this:

Baron/ERC Partnership with the National Climatic Data Center to Deliver Real-Time and Historical Radar Data and Products to the Nation --

Click HERE to read the Press Release
http://www.baronservices.com/News/VIPIR_24...rc_release.html (http://www.baronservices.com/News/VIPIR_24_7/Baron_ERC_Release/baron_erc_release.html)

While a great deal of the ideas, software, technology, upgrading comes from the NWS, the NOAA/NWS research centers like Boulder, Norman, Washington DC and from the universities, private companies do have a role in helping make this technology possible, the government does contract private companies to make various stuff for the NWS. Examples: NEXRAD and UNISYS, Enterprise Electronics, when AWIPS came out, Northrup Grumman IT (Litton PRC) are examples of the public and private partnerships.Some examples of public and private partnerships.

Mike

Jeff Wear

06-29-2004, 08:34 PM

From what I gather the issue seems to be whether or not the NWS should develop interactive graphic based software to display data. If there are already other private companies that are developing software that displays these data in a similar interactive graphic format then I can certainly see how they would be threatened by this. Either way I didn't see anything in those links that would threaten the free availability of NWS text products.

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 08:41 PM

More information

NWS National Digital Forecast Database (NDFD)
http://weather.gov/ndfd/index.htm

NWS Interactive Forecast Preparation System (IFPS)
http://weather.gov/ndfd/ifps.htm

Mike

rdale

06-29-2004, 09:15 PM

"The Aviation Weather Center, the CWSU's and the various FSS provide timely advisories, forecasts, observations to wide variety of people."

That's a new thread - apparently there is a growing sentiment within NWS / FAA that the CWSU's should be closed.

- Rob

mikegeukes

06-29-2004, 09:19 PM

What's so big about NWS doing radio forecasts, etc? NWS is largely paid by taxpayer money, and thus is a public service. So why can't these forecasts be on the radio?"

NWS has their own radio, NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), why would they want to do local radio stations.

Mike

Greg Stumpf

06-30-2004, 05:20 AM

While a great deal of the ideas, software, technology, upgrading comes from the NWS, the NOAA/NWS research centers like Boulder, Norman, Washington DC and from the universities, private companies do have a role in helping make this technology possible, the government does contract private companies to make various stuff for the NWS. Examples: NEXRAD and UNISYS, Enterprise Electronics, when AWIPS came out, Northrup Grumman IT (Litton PRC) are examples of the public and private partnerships.Some examples of public and private partnerships.

I am a fan of public-private partnerships (you state a number of fruitful ones above). My organization is currently involved in a number of public-private cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) in which new applied research and or development of a new severe weather tool is done to benefit both the private industry partner in their customized delivery of value-added weather-sensitive information, and the public weather services for saving lives. There need to be more of these kinds of relationships, IMHO.

I am an opponent of the notion of some of the private met industry to drive wedges between themselves and decent honest meteorologists working in public weather services to protect lives and personal public property. Many of these private folks have the media on their side and use that to their advantage. They are rallying their media customers to bash the public weather services, and pointing out a few specific failures by the public services rather than conducting comprehensive statistical comparisons of entire data sets of operational prodcuts. This is very unhealthy for the meteorological community. Instead, both sides should work together.

g

Mike Smith

06-30-2004, 08:19 AM

Here is my reply to the original Slashdot post pertaining to the proposed policy that will allow the National Weather Service to compete with the private sector.

Dear Slashdot Community,

I am afraid you have been taken in by someone with a hidden agenda on the National Weather Service policy issue. The information originally posted (anonymously, I note, my name follows my post) pertaining to the commercial weather industry could not be farther from the truth.

Rather than wanting the National Weather Service to withhold data, we are 100% in favor of the National Weather Service releasing 100% of its data in real time. The National Weather Service DOES NOT release 100% of its data now. Among the examples of data it withholds are its real time hurricane wind field analysis and its new, faster, tornado detection algorithm. We believe that all taxpayers have paid for this information and all should have access to it.

So, what are the real issues?

I believe what the original writer really wants is a proposed change in National Weather Service policy to allow it to directly compete with the private sector to be approved. Proponents are trying to muddy the water with the phony “withholding data” issue.

Our position is that National Weather Service should not compete with the private sector in meteorology. We believe the proper role of the federal government is to:

• Create inftrastructure. Launch the weather balloons, take the observations, run the routine computer models, etc.
• Provide storm warnings for the public-at-large
• Perhaps provide routine forecasts for the public-at-large, but this one is debatable (i.e., more than 90% of the weather forecasts now in use come from the private sector, why expend taxpayer resources duplicating that effort?)

Everything else, besides forecasts and warnings for the public, should be done by the private sector. If you want a specialized product (note: not data), you could use NWS raw data to create it yourself OR hire a private sector company. The choice is yours now and we want it to remain that way.

The National Weather Service is proposing a change in its policy to allow it to directly compete with the private sector and use taxpayer dollars to create customized products. How would you like it if the government, with its huge resources and taxing authority, suddenly decided to reverse policy and use your tax dollars to compete with you??

If you watch The Weather Channel®, you are watching the private sector in action. The forecasts they present every eight minutes are their forecasts, not the National Weather Service’s. Most all television meteorologists do NOT present the National Weather Service’s forecast. If you get the weather from www.weather.com, www.accuweather.com, www.intellicast.com, etc., you are getting weather from the private sector. Note that all of these are FREE and will remain so regardless of the National Weather Service’s policy.

So, you may ask, why not let the National Weather Service compete?

That might be a good idea if you want to pay more in taxes or if you want to shut off the innovation in meteorology that has made the United States the envy of the world in weather. The private sector in meteorology invented: Tornado warnings, color radar, Doppler radar displays, color newspaper weather packages, computerized, animated television weather displays, weather web sites, etc., etc., etc. The National Weather Service did not invent any of this. For the latest in innovation, go to www.stormhawk.com, which was developed by my company, WeatherData, Incorporated.

Canada has already done what the U.S. National Weather Service advocates (allowing Environment Canada to compete with private industry) and it clearly was not a success. The Canadian government reversed course earlier this year. Why do we want to make the same mistake?

We believe a proper role of the federal government is to create infrastructure from which private industry can grow and prosper. To use an analogy, the federal government funds 90% (states 10%) of the interstate highway system but does not manufacture automobiles or run trucking companies. The highway infrastructure is there to allow commerce and the public at large to benefit.

We hope you will support the free and open exchange of data and support keeping and strengthening the current National Weather Service policy of focusing on its core mission (data, warnings and, possibly, forecasts for the public at large) and let the private sector in meteorology continue its innovative and pioneering role.

Please send your comments to: fairweather@noaa.gov

Thank you for your interest.

Mike Smith

Greg Stumpf

06-30-2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Mike Smith
The National Weather Service DOES NOT release 100% of its data now. Among the examples of data it withholds are its real time hurricane wind field analysis and its new, faster, tornado detection algorithm (underline added by Greg). We believe that all taxpayers have paid for this information and all should have access to it.

Mike,

From what I know, the ORPG Tornado Detection Algorithm (TDA) was upgraded to rapid update capability (TRU) only in the most recent build. "Rapid update" in this incarnation means that data from new elevation scans is combined with volumetric TVS detections to coast and upgrade detections before the end of a new volume scan. Whether or not TRU data have been made available on the Level III and IV product feeds is unknown to me. But from my perspective, I'm not aware of any movement within the NWS to restrict these data to the public and private sector, rather that the infrastructure to do it hasn't yet been developed. Mike, for your benefit, I hope I'm right. I personally see no problem releasing that data to the public (that decision isn't mine) as long as they are accompanied by proper education and the data are not abused.

I'm going off on a tangent here, but it would be of great benefit to folks to understand that the Tornado Detection Algorithm (TDA) is a misnomer. It does NOT detect tornadoes, nor was it ever designed to do so. The original name of the algorithm while under development at NSSL was the TVS (tornadic vortex signatute) Detection Algorithm (also TDA). It was designed to detect gate-to-gate shear signatures meeting strength and depth criteria. Not all gate-to-gate shear signatures are associated with tornadoes. Further confusion results when the locations of gate-to-gate shear are often displayed as red triangles - the shape of a tornado funnel. The TDA is just one of the guidance tools available to meterologists for making tornado warning decisions. Is it trained to be used as a "heads-up" or "safety net" for meteorologists to then analyze the base radar data.

greg

rdale

06-30-2004, 09:25 AM

"But from my perspective, I'm not aware of any movement within the NWS to restrict these data to the public and private sector, rather that the infrastructure to do it hasn't yet been developed."

You are correct - it's more of a communication issue than outright restriction. However when it comes to NIDS, the new hi-res VIL and some of the other products that just became available should be available on the NWS NIDS service but are not being provided. Unsure about that one.

- Rob

Mike Smith

06-30-2004, 09:44 AM

Greg,

The private sector made requests of the NWS to release the results of the new algorithm when the newest WSR-88D build was announced. The NWS turned us down and has turned down subsequent requests. They say they are not "required" to do so.

This is the crux of the matter: Should the NWS be devoting its finite resources on creating, gathering and distributing data or should it be spending its resources competing with the private sector?

I believe the community should come out strongly in favor of the NWS being required to release 100% of its data in real time. The deadline for comments is today.

Mike

Glen Romine

06-30-2004, 11:19 AM

Mike et al.,

I don't see how your argument is consistent though - because you are asking for the NWS to release 100% of its "raw" data - yet you are also asking for processed data such as model output, radar algorithms, etc.... So is it only offensive to the private sector when this information is made available in a graphical form that the public might be able to understand? Taxpayers pay for the collection and processing of the data - I don't see where it is unreasonable for that data to be made available to the general public in a form that they are able to readily use. Where is the private sector contribution here? Again, value add - contribute something to the data to make a product that your customer can readily use. Fortunately, the academic community will continue to distribute products anyway.

As for the algorithm availability, if you choose to allow the NWS to process data in your system, I agree with you that these should be made available once the infrastructure is in place to do so, but the implementation of potentially life-saving changes shouldn't be delayed until the such an infrastructure is in place. Otherwise, develop your own algorithms, and then you have something you can market!

My 2 cents, Glen

Mike Smith

06-30-2004, 11:25 AM

Glen,

I don't see the inconsistency. The output of the TDA algorithm (which is data) is simply an azimuth and range and the fact that a detection has been made. It should be released to anyone that wishes to use it.

If a an individual, organization or private sector company wants to make some sort of animation, or add value in some other way, fine.

The TDA output is "infrastructure."

The NWS should make all data available in real time. But, it should not be in the "value added" or specialized product business.

Mike

Glen Romine

06-30-2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Mike Smith
The output of the TDA algorithm (which is data) .....

The TDA output is \"infrastructure.\"

The NWS should make all data available in real time. But, it should not be in the \"value added\" or specialized product business.

Mike

The TDA algorithm is derived data, not raw, and infrastructure is buildings, personnel, and equipment, not data. I agree with you completely that the NWS should make data available in real time as is practical for the benefit of the public and for life-saving and property saving decisions - but the latter is partially met by making available data products which are interpretable by the general public (i.e. not data in a compressed file format). I think the air quality industry is a model example of how success can still be achieved using a combination of NWS data their own data and processing to create a truly unique and valuable product. Where is this segment standing in the fair weather argument?

Glen

Mike Smith

06-30-2004, 01:29 PM

Glen,

Thanks for the comment. I think we are much more in agreement than it might appear. Yes, there should absolutely be products for the public at large from the derived data (the TDA output), in this case a tornado warning. That tornado warning should be clear, timely, easy-to-understand, and effective.

I, and I believe virtually all of my colleagues in the commercial weather industry (to stay on the TDA example), favor:

-- NWS issuing a tornado warning (a "derived product") from the TDA (and whatever other data they wish to use) for the public at large.

-- The data from which they create the tornado warning being made available on a timely basis.

However, value-added or tailored products from the TDA should not be done by the NWS.

With regard to the air pollution subset of commercial meteorology, I believe they overwhelmingly favor the CWSA position. The National Council of Industrial Meteorologists (which has a large air pollution membership) is strongly on board with strengthening the 1991 policy and not adopting the proposed new policy.

Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to the StormTrack community. Two years ago, I published an article, "Five Myths of Commercial Meteorology" in the Bulletin of the AMS. That article is available on the AMS website and it is also available on the WeatherData® website at: weatherdata.com/services/news_5myths.php . Regardless of where you might stand on this issue, I believe there is some valuable historical and factual information that might give these discussions some needed background and context.

Thanks, Glen, for your thoughts and comments. Thanks, also, to the larger StormTrack community. This is an important issue and I hope you will make your comments known before the close of the comment period later this afternoon.

Mike

rdale

06-30-2004, 02:06 PM

"So is it only offensive to the private sector when this information is made available in a graphical form that the public might be able to understand?"

The new NIDS products (hi-res VIL and echo tops) are not available in raw or graphic form to the public or commercial sectors. All they need to do is to add that to the NWSTG ftp server that contains NIDS products as the data is being transmitted. They will not.

- Rob

Greg Stumpf

06-30-2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by rdale
The new NIDS products (hi-res VIL and echo tops) are not available in raw or graphic form to the public or commercial sectors. All they need to do is to add that to the NWSTG ftp server that contains NIDS products as the data is being transmitted. They will not.

Hmmm...those two specific products (HRVIL and EET) might fall into a "special" category. Apparently, those two products were developed by an academic institution (who will remain nameless) who retains special IP rights to them. I believe that the licensing agreement states that the products cannot be disseminated for use by private industry unless those private companies also pay licensing fees for them (BTW - NSSL has never done this with the IP they've transferred to the ROC).

This sounds somewhat ugly, and I'm offering my best guess based on what I know about those two specific products. For the absolute answer, however, you should contact the WSR-88D Radar Operations Center (ROC).

As for other radar products that may not be available yet...anyone can obtain the source code to operational algorithms simply through the Freedom of Information Act. If you can't obtain a specific real-time product, you can still get the raw Level-II radar data, and run the same source code on it and distribute the product yourself. I know a few private met companies that already have the ORPG code (sans HRVIL and EET) and are implementing them on their own systems.

greg