Complaining About the Weather (Current Events)

[SSJPabs]

Check this out from the Palmbeach Post

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_0421.html


Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone?

That information is available for free from the National Weather Service.

But under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear.

The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites.You know my tax dollars already pay for these forecasting services. Why should I have to pay extra or look at a bunch of adds to get weather information?

[sun]

I would like to comment at length on it, but it would involve a discussion as to whether or not the government should or shouldn't give out weather advise for free (it already does) which could possibly lead to a political discussion which would lead to the Z man shutting us off. I do hope they don't stop giving tornado warnings and storm warnings of all kinds (like hurricane) ..those I think are very essential to all..Thank you.

[William C. Maune]

I saw that article yesterday and almost posted something about it myself. I don't see any reason who the government, from which all the whether data comes, shouldn't be able to provide it free to the public. Our tax dollars shouldn't go to collect the data just so another business can charge us for it, especially when it is something that affects our everyday lives as much as the weather.

Furthermore, I don't think the Senator really understands how the gathering of meterological information and forecasting works. While any company can forecast the weather, none are set up, or could realistically be set up, to gather the data necessary to make forecasts. Meteorological data is gathered through governement satellites (of the US and other nations), 100s of weather balloons sent up multiple times a day from many locations around the country and world, 1000s of observation stations scattered throughout each state and the rest of the world, high quality radars found in each state, etc., etc. Furthermore, a lot of forecasting done by both the governement and private industry these days relies on the numbers provided by many atmospheric models run on some of the world's biggest supercomputers and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, as well as some models from other countries.

Whether or not the government provides actual forecasts to the public, all of the above still has to be done and thus the government wouldn't really be saving any money that could be used for hurricane forecasting or anything else. As taxpayers we pay a lot of money for that data and there is no reason that some company should be able to receive a windfall due to our tax dollars.

Furthermore, compared to the government forecasts, the ones provided by private companies tend to be pretty crappy. Many of those companies simply pick up fresh graduates, pay them next to nothing and work them into the ground. To actually get into a government forecasting position you have to be pretty good. These people employed at each of the National Weather Service offices not only forecast, but do a lot of other things as well. The forecast is just the part that the public normally sees. Each office also puts out a detailed discussion of the forecast each day, basically a long reasoning behind the forecast filled with Meteorology science stuff. (Oh, and these forecast discussions are something else the private companies rely on).

A large part of government forecaster's work also occurs during severe weather and this is year round whether it be severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, flooding, snow, sleet, ice, etc. This information is stuff the government needs to, and would still have to, provide. However, they can't provide this information unless they are also doing their own forecasts to determine if there is any threat of severe weather that day. Thus, unlike what the Senator argues, the government would save nothing cost-wise except for maybe bandwidth on a few web pages. All this bill would do would provide a windfall to some private companies for something we already pay for, and we'd get crappier weather information.

As for whether or not this is a political discussion, I can't speak for the Cafe mods, but I'm guessing its fine. It seems more like an economics discussion to me. Plus, the articles I've read haven't said anything about democrats lining up against republicans on this issue (or vice-versa).

William C. Maune
Meteorologist

[solarflere]

Well, I don't know about The Weather Channel, but AccuWeather has their own "birds" in the sky (Forcast Radar Communitation setelites), they rely on no one. I like AccuWeather better than The Weather Channel anywhay. I realy don't mind the ads, since its free (15 days and 3 days hour by hour), and international weather. Plus Hurricane, Tornado and Tropical storm centers.
But those weather programs (The Weather Channel and weather bug) don't just have ads, they have popups and Spyware, like the Gator network.

[William C. Maune]

well, I dont know about The Weather Channel, but AccuWeather has their own "birds" in the sky (Forcast Radar Communitation setelites), they rely on no one. I like AccuWeather better than The Weather Channel anywhay. I realy dont mind the ads, since itf free (15 days and 3 days hour by hour), and international weather plus Hurricane Tornado and Tropical storm centers.

They may have thier own satellites, but I can almost guarantee you that they rely on other information as well. If they some how aren't relying on other information then they have a really bad set of data to forecast with.

[solarflere]

They may have thier own satellites, but I can almost guarantee you that they rely on other information as well. If they some how aren't relying on other information then they have a really bad set of data to forecast with. I don't know how many exactly, but I can tell you that its more them one setelite out there that is giving them the info, plus ground radars and super comuters which interpret the data to make it presentable.

[William C. Maune]

Do you have a link regarding their Forecast Radar Communication satellites? I can't seem to find anything about them on Accuweather's website. As for radars, unless there is some nationwide radar network that I don't know about, then those are the government radars they are utilizing. The same goes for the super computers.

[solarflere]

I read an article in NYTimes Science Times section about them. They don't need nationwide radar network, the settelites provide it, they literaly circle the globe and scan the atmospheric conditions to provide the latest real time info. its a bit more scientific, i don't remamber the details, but its pretty cool.

By the way, news networks like Fox and Times Warner have their own setelites.

[William C. Maune]

I read an article in NYTimes Science Times section about them. They don't need nationwide radar network, the settelites provide it, they literaly circle the globe and scan the atmospheric conditions to provide the latest real time info. its a bit more scientific, i don't remamber the details, but its pretty cool.

Weather satellites are good for a big picture of the situation, but they can't provide the local detail, or the same types of data as a ground based radar. Currently, there is no good way to get the same type of data we typically see in a radar image from a satellite.

Furthermore, satellites can't truly provide real time info. They can take a real time picture of a broad area, but it takes time to interpret that data into various forecast tools. More importantly though, while a satellite can zoom in locally, it can only do this for one place at a time. When you are providing weather information and forecasts for 1000s of places nationwide you can't get real time info for those places from a satellite that can only look at one place at a time. Instead, you need radars and the other forms of data I mentioned in my earlier post.

Edit: As for the news networks having their own satellites, those are communications satellites which simply relay data as opposed to satellites taking scientific measurements and containing various instruments needed to collect data.

[solarflere]

They can and they do show real time radar images in their site, I am looking at them now (focusing on Ney York State).
I can also zoom in on any part of the US with a click of a mouse button.

[William C. Maune]

They can and they do show real time radar images in their site, I am looking at them now (focusing on Ney York State).

Then the image must be from a radar and not a satellite.

[solarflere]

Then the image must be from a radar and not a satellite. Although Doppler radars are some of the most powerfull forcasting and futurecasting radars avalable, they transmit data realtime from given amount of settelites simontaneously so they can focus on a specific area.

Edit: radars always communicate with setelites.

[William C. Maune]

Although Doppler radars are some of the most powerfull forcasting and futurecasting radars avalable, they transmit data realtime from given amount of settelites simontaneously so they can focus on a specific area.

There aren't enough satellites up there to transmit that kind of data, especially real time. Assuming they have their own satellies, it's not more than two or three and even then they can't gather radar data from the satellites.

[solarflere]

There aren't enough satellites up there to transmit that kind of data, especially real time. Assuming they have their own satellies, it's not more than two or three and even then they can't gather radar data from the satellites. Radars can not take pictures of the entire continental US and them zoom in on any given area of your choice. Settelites show the US image and transfer the request to a localized radar station.

Edit: without the setelites, radars would be half useles because they would not be able to communitate between each other.

[William C. Maune]

Radars can not take pictures of the entire continental US and them zoom in on any given area of your choice. Settelites show the US image and transfer the request to a localized radar station.

In that case, once the request is transfered then the data is still coming from the radar which is owned by the government.

Also, I've still been digging around AccuWeather's website. From this page (http://www.pilotweather.com/avibinf/graphsat?wxcity=%3B%3B&partner=AccuWeather&metrix=1&select=canm) there is a link to an FAQ (found at the bottom of the page). One of the FAQ questions is:

"What are satellite images?"

Accuweather's response is:

"Satellite images can be used to show current cloud cover or can be shown in sequence loops to depict cloud movement. AccuWeather uses GOES-8, GOES-9, Meteosat and GMS Satellites to make dozens of different satellite sectors available, each showing clouds over a different area."

Those are all satellites owned by various governements. GOES-8 and GOES-9 are American, Meteosat is European and I forget which country GMS is at the moment.

[Aquadementia]

Trust WCM on this.
What he says jives with everything I've ever read, and I did a little googling.

Accuweather uses

Radar: Nexrad - a NOAA national doppler radar network

Satellites:
GOES -NOAA satellite
Meteostat - European Union I think
GMS - Japanese satellite

They do some weather prediction with clusters. Edit: That technology review article is old, and doesn't say anything about cluster. I'll have to look more later about that.

Looks like he beat me too it. Oh well, here are a few random links
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/03/06/freedman0603.asp?p=0
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/phoenix2/faq/adc/satellitefaq.htm
http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/goes-9.asp
http://www.niwa.co.nz/services/sat/gms

[William C. Maune]

Looks like he beat me too it. Oh well

No problem at all! It's nice to have the back up.

[SSJPabs]

To me it seems like an effort to stifle competition.

[EinBebop]

To me it seems like an effort to stifle competition.Really? I kinda thought that federally funding a free service was stifling to competition. Perhaps we're on the same page here; your response was a little vague.

[Chris Wood]

Really? I kinda thought that federally funding a free service was stifling to competition. Perhaps we're on the same page here; your response was a little vague.

Are you saying you want to pay for it?

[William C. Maune]

I wouldn't classify it as federal funding of a free service though. It is a service the government needs to provide from a public safety standpoint and a service industry couldn't provide on its own due to the data collection and other factors involved.

[EinBebop]

Are you saying you want to pay for it?No, I want everything given to me for free, and I want the government to provide it. Starting right now with lunch.

[William C. Maune]

No, I want everything given to me for free, and I want the government to provide it. Starting right now with lunch.

No one is saying the government should give everything to folks to free.

[EinBebop]

I wouldn't classify it as federal funding of a free service though. It is federally funded, and it's a public service that costs me nothing, right?

I'm not saying it's arguing that it's existence is good or bad. I'm just saying that the services that aren't provided tax dollars are at a distinct disadvantage, regardless.

[William C. Maune]

I'm not saying it's arguing that it's existence is good or bad. I'm just saying that the services that aren't provided tax dollars are at a distinct disadvantage, regardless.

However, the private weather services essentially are provided tax dollars, just indirectly. They couldn't and don't exist without all the meteorological data collected by the government using our tax dollars.

[Chris Wood]

I'm not saying it's arguing that it's existence is good or bad. I'm just saying that the services that aren't provided tax dollars are at a distinct disadvantage, regardless.

At a disadvantage? Does the National Weather Service turn a profit?

[EinBebop]

However, the private weather services essentially are provided tax dollars, just indirectly. They couldn't and don't exist without all the meteorological data collected by the government using our tax dollars.So the commercial services aren't really competition, at least, not in the classic sense. All of the information is collected by the government and reported by the government. The weather services are just taking what's given freely and trying to create a value-added product.

So I was incorrect in saying that their existence stifles competion. But I still don't see how the non-existence of the reporting arm (SJJPab's argument) stifles competition, either.
At a disadvantage? Does the National Weather Service turn a profit?That's precisely the advantage of a government-run business. They don't have to turn a profit to take business from commercial interests.

[Chris Wood]

That's precisely the advantage of a government-run business. They don't have to turn a profit to take business from commercial interests.

But who cares? Unless you own stock in the Weather Channel or something. God forbid anyone should try to make a handful of basic, essential information available for free. If my math teachers had charged me $10 for every question I asked over the years my parents would be rotting away in debtors prison right about now.

[EinBebop]

But who cares?In light of Maune's response, we're drifting off-topic. But on the general subject of government competing with business, he cares:
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/%7Eaecaskey/ties/alex.gif
God forbid anyone should try to make a handful of basic, essential information available for free. If my math teachers had charged me $10 for every question I asked over the years my parents would be rotting away in debtors prison right about now.Just because social education works (a debatable statement itself) doesn't mean that we should socialize everything we can. It may be free TO YOU, but someone has to pay for it.

[Chris Wood]

[EinBebop]In light of Maune's response, we're drifting off-topic. But on the general subject of government competing with business, he cares:

Marty McFly??? Are we going to disrupt the timespace continuum if Weather Channel doesn't leap to the top of the Fortune 500?




Just because social education works (a debatable statement itself) doesn't mean that we should socialize everything we can.

It doesn't mean we should privatize it either.


It may be free TO YOU, but someone has to pay for it.

I presume you're referring to taxes. In which case, the percentage of our taxes supporting the National Weather Service is probably miniscule. Even if that funding were halted, that tiny surplus would quickly be absorbed by some other program (social security maybe?).