Scott wrote:

David Salmon wrote:
I have just read the Senate bill at;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Wu4LQQ::

And at no point does it restrict access to NWS data.

What is does do, is curtail the from continuing to encroach on what had long
been the arena for private meteorologist in the U.S., with more and more of
their value-added products. As a creator of value added products,
I must support such a measure to stem the out-going tide of my income.

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).

David Salmon
doing business as "Weather Derivatives";
deriving useful information for sound business decisions from
weather data.

I believe the output on that site is dynamic, thus your
link will not point anywhere. But if you go to thomas.loc.gov
and enter National Weather Service as keywords, the bill
pops up.

Speaking as someone who works at a university that puts out
value-added products (GOES cloud winds, for example), but
who does not speak for that university, I'm not sure how
curtailing our data stream would help anyone.

Scott

I think you know, Scott. If universities are not allowed to do it,
maybe someone will pay a private company to do it, which helps the
private company. Whether this helps society as a whole or is good
for the profession is questionable, IMO.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:06:50 -0500,
David Salmon , in
wrote:
+ James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be
+ perfectly clear for you and anybody else;

That's perfectly clear.

Let me be equally clear: why should I pay taxes to provide you data
for *free*, then turn around and have to pay *you* for your value-added
products?

When you start paying for data - and I mean paying for the actual
data, and not the delivery thereof - then I might start thinking it's
all equal.

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.

On 21 Apr 2005 10:53:19 -0700,
Mike Harpe , in
.com wrote:

+ I have a petition setup at....
+
+ http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS
+
+ Please check this out and sign it! I plan to distribute the results to
+ the responsible legislators.

All well and good, but no substitue for writing a letter, on paper,
complete with stamp and sending it to your representatives.

If you do, be polite. Try to be grammatically and spelling
correct. Point out the problem of having to pay twice for data.

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.