Weather Banter - National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

Weather Banter (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/)

- sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/sci-geo-meteorology-meteorology/)

- - National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action! (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/sci-geo-meteorology-meteorology/106966-national-weather-service-duties-act-2005-call-action.html)

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:12:23 -0500,
David Salmon , in
wrote:

+ If I read the fine print correctly, it will also stop universities from
+ posting value added products too (at least I hope that is what it says).

So, David, are you going to start producing a surface wind product
over the tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean basins? such as these?

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/RVSMDC/neww.../psv200503.gif
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/WOCE/SAC/fs...dn_mar2005.gif

Or will you instead beg off and claim that they're "not economically
feasible"?

James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be
perfectly clear for you and anybody else;

My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private
forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and
universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast
clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb
forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors! I
have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there
is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private
company is/can do it, it should be left to them.

I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand
forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values,
calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that
long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily
product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their
otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps
their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a
university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I
also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial"
results/value-added portion.

I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other
soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too.
I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates'
I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell
when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a
university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best. My
day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if
NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling
me how much precipitation has occurred! If they would do their jobs they
have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up
ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s).

David Salmon

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your
just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you
want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has
a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't
worth the cost.

-JATO
http://jatobservatory.org

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:06:50 -0500, "David Salmon"
wrote:

James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be
perfectly clear for you and anybody else;

My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private
forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and
universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast
clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb
forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors! I
have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there
is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private
company is/can do it, it should be left to them.

I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand
forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values,
calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that
long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily
product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their
otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps
their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a
university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I
also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial"
results/value-added portion.

I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other
soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too.
I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates'
I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell
when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a
university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best. My
day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if
NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling
me how much precipitation has occurred! If they would do their jobs they
have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up
ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s).

David Salmon

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

David Salmon wrote:

James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be
perfectly clear for you and anybody else;

Let me be completely clear, if I have not been already. Santorum
is trying to help a constituent by screwing the larger public. Some
people would emphasize the former as proper constituent service
provided by an elected official. I prefer to emphasize the latter.
SMMV (Santorum's milage may vary :-) ).

My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private
forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and
universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast
clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb
forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors!

How about "private" universities? Are they to be allowed to compete
with "private" meteorologists in your world? What about about
climatological and meteorological services provided by state
extension services to agriculture? And why shouldn't students at
universities be allowed to expand their horizons into the "value
added" arena if it helps their educations? While the undergrads
might not be interested in this, I can imagine that a graduate
student project could produce results which impinge on what you
would claim as your territory. Should the government be empowered
to enforce prior restraint on the free speech rights of that person
to present his/her results, free of charge if that person so chooses?

I
have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there
is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private
company is/can do it, it should be left to them.

I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand
forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values,
calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that
long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily
product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their
otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps
their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a
university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I
also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial"
results/value-added portion.

Well, it depends on how one defines "value added". If you think the
forecasters and other line staff are sitting around saying, "Gee,
let's figure out what we can do to add to our heavy work load and
screw our colleagues who work in the private sector, I say you're
wrong. I could (now) tell you some stories about how some of these
new products from NWS come about, but I won't (at least not here).

I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other
soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too.
I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates'
I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell
when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a
university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best.

Well, certain units of the NWS need soil moisture for their work,
most or all of which (like drought monitoring) IMO are valid NWS
activities. Now the question arises: if this information has been
gathered with tax payer money, why shouldn't the tax payers get to
look at at? This is a valid area for debate, IMO. As a tax payer,
I want what I paid for. IMO that's completely understandable. Of
course, you would like me to pay you for it, or something like it,
because you get more money. That's completely understandable. IMO
my position is the more reasonable.

My
day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if
NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling
me how much precipitation has occurred!

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...s_precip.shtml
isn't good enough?

If they would do their jobs they
have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up
ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s).

David Salmon

David, you're talking through your hat, as my mom would say. I still
have tingling in my fingers from my time working for the NWS, from
sitting for hours at a stretch without a break using mouse and keyboard
to make forecasts and get them out on schedule. The line forecasters
don't have time to figure out ways to cut your throat and as I said,
in my experience they have no desire to.

Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

JATO

I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your
just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you
want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has
a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't
worth the cost.

Would be nice if this were always true, but quite often people do pay for
an inferior product and don't want one that is better. It also depends
to some extent who is providing the product, who endorses it, etc. People
will assume something is good from a certain source, but if you actually
verify the forecasts, you may find otherwise. People are told something
is good or bad enough times, and they generally become convinced of that.

I see pros and cons to David's argument, and he probably sees enough of his
and others forecasts to make an honest evaluation of their accuracy. Yet
proving his is more accurate with verifications would make a better argument.

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:16:07 GMT, Joseph Bartlo
wrote:

JATO

I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your
just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you
want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has
a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't
worth the cost.

Would be nice if this were always true, but quite often people do pay for
an inferior product and don't want one that is better. It also depends
to some extent who is providing the product, who endorses it, etc. People
will assume something is good from a certain source, but if you actually
verify the forecasts, you may find otherwise. People are told something
is good or bad enough times, and they generally become convinced of that.

I see pros and cons to David's argument, and he probably sees enough of his
and others forecasts to make an honest evaluation of their accuracy. Yet
proving his is more accurate with verifications would make a better argument.

Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the
private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free
service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need
these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by
comparison. I believe a good product sells itself. I also hate whiners
and it sound to me like the guy is just whining. But that is just my
opinion.

-JATO

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

I think he has a point. IMO it isn't good for the government to do
everything,
just as it isn't good for private enterprise to do everything. I think
that the
balance should be determined largely by knowledgeable people, like
professionals in the field. But that's just my opinion.

Cheers,
Russell

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!

JATO

Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the
private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free
service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need
these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by
comparison. I believe a good product sells itself.

I agree that is true to some extent, but for example suppose someone says he
likes Osama Bin Laden and makes the most accurate forecasts. Do you really
think he'll be hired by many people in our country? Suppose a person makes
crummy forecasts and has a name like AccuWeather behind him or the endorsement
of many of his peers, is friends with people high on the proverbial
meteorological totem pole. I've been in the science long enough to realize
that it is to some extent not what you know but who you know - sort of like
a network of a bunch of people of like mind patting each other on the back
and leading themselves into wherever.