Fox News has Outdone Themselves This Time

[k***]

You are clueless....which for you, is an upgrade from dum.

dum?

[Shawn]

This threads going way to political, but what else would anyone expect of Fox? Whether they actually wrote it or published it. (; Yeah "Fox" while you sit around and say "there are hurricane warnings issued for blahblahblah" remember where they came from kthnx.

[superjames1992]

Horrible opinion piece and a horrible idea.

I am not sure if the NWS' point forecasts are necessarily that great and all, but that is not what their main function is. Their main function is to identify the main, overlying synoptic pattern, issue life-saving warnings, run models, maintain radar sites, collect data, ect. And most of this information would probably not be taken if it were up to private companies as it is hard to find much profitability in running radars (minus making people/meteorologists pay obscene amounts of money to view them, I guess).

[Jim Marusak]

one thing i never hear mentioned in these articles: what happens if a major bust leads to major unexpected property loss in a fully privatized weather service? right now the NWS's limited liability clauses shield most companies from lawsuits from such errors except for the most egregious. if it's all fully privatized, wouldn't that mean that if a forecast bust causes minor to major life and/or property loss, it becomes grounds for a major lawsuit for the company to defend. how much would the courts be clogged up with that? and how much would liability/malpractice insurance be for a meteorologist? i'd bet higher than a high-risk specialty doctor pays right now. talk about an industry killer.

[baroclinic_instability]

We're talking about the NWS, please take the overt political nonsense to AP.

[baroclinic_instability]

one thing i never hear mentioned in these articles: what happens if a major bust leads to major unexpected property loss in a fully privatized weather service? right now the NWS's limited liability clauses shield most companies from lawsuits from such errors except for the most egregious. if it's all fully privatized, wouldn't that mean that if a forecast bust causes minor to major life and/or property loss, it becomes grounds for a major lawsuit for the company to defend. how much would the courts be clogged up with that? and how much would liability/malpractice insurance be for a meteorologist? i'd bet higher than a high-risk specialty doctor pays right now. talk about an industry killer.

Yes, solid points here. The public should not need to pay up the wazoo for weather information. This is the whole point, not to mention the economic benefits provided by the weather service. I wish the general public could see "behind the scenes" and all the different weather and climate products the NWS is really responsible for. Throw in the numerical models, RADAR maintenance, ASOS, data quality control and the various data sources that go into the models (yes, the same models the private weather uses for free), products ranging from point fire forecasts to severe/tornado warnings, winter weather products, drought products, climate products, marine weather, aviation/TAFS, public outreach, etc. Yes, there is much more than the "point-click" forecast to the NWS.

[baroclinic_instability]

The beauty of weather is there is a need for co-existence among private weather firms as well as the NWS. What this silly article does not even mention is the mass amount of data the NWS provides that would not otherwise exist which is used daily by the private weather industry. From the numerical models, the complex data observation network used by those models, the upper air program, satellite program, RADAR network, etc. That is ALL free and provided by the government/NWS. This free service is what provides the private weather corporations the potential profits they enjoy, and it is what gives the public the essential weather information they need to minimize socio-economic disasters. Everyone wants to politicize complex issues these days with simplistic political ideologies/beliefs, but nothing is ever so simple. Yes, there are actually beneficial government programs out there, and yes, there is most definitely a place for private weather companies, but claiming competition and "innovation" is good for everyone is not necessarily true, especially in meteorology. This is a science, and scientific information should not be privatized to the point nobody can afford it except the richest/wealthiest or large companies/corporations. Thankfully most in private weather (note "most", not all) understand the relationship, even if the dolts at FOX/CEI do not.

[NickD2011]

We have one of the most advanced weather services in the world. There are some countries that don't even have weather radar!

Where do all the private weather services get their data from? The NWS!

We need a government run weather service that doesn't care about profits. A weather service funded by an insurance company would not care about a small county in Kansas being hit by a tornado if it has no customers there. AccuWeather would focus on the major cities. The Weather Channel would hype everything for ratings. Who would collect all the data for the weather models?

[NickD2011]

Horrible opinion piece and a horrible idea.

I am not sure if the NWS' point forecasts are necessarily that great and all, but that is not what their main function is. Their main function is to identify the main, overlying synoptic pattern, issue life-saving warnings, run models, maintain radar sites, collect data, ect. And most of this information would probably not be taken if it were up to private companies as it is hard to find much profitability in running radars (minus making people/meteorologists pay obscene amounts of money to view them, I guess).

TV stations run their own radars, but they keep the data to themselves, their data is not standardized with other station's radars and the NWS radars, and they don't have as many products available as the NWS radar.

[baroclinic_instability]

TV stations run their own radars, but they keep the data to themselves, their data is not standardized with other station's radars and the NWS radars, and they don't have as many products available as the NWS radar.

Say what...??

[Clinch Leatherwood]

There are hoards of pissed off people in Massachusetts with basically the same sentiment as that article and about 1 in 100 actually votes anything but Ted Kennedy left in this State.

Please leave the political BS for the OT forum. You don't have to be a right winger to question all aspects of government spending.

For the record I saw the CNN piece the reporter talks about...was as bad as NBC and Michelle Krisnzky (whatever her name is) sitting in the canoe pretending to be in flood waters when two guys walk by in shoe sole deep water carrying groceries.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100102355/perfect-storm-of-hype-politicians-the-media-and-the-hurricane-irene-apocalypse-that-never-was/

[baroclinic_instability]

There are hoards of pissed off people in Massachusetts with basically the same sentiment as that article and about 1 in 100 actually votes anything but Ted Kennedy left in this State.

Please leave the political BS for the OT forum. You don't have to be a right winger to question all aspects of government spending.

For the record I saw the CNN piece the reporter talks about...was as bad as NBC and Michelle Krisnzky (whatever her name is) sitting in the canoe pretending to be in flood waters when two guys walk by in shoe sole deep water carrying groceries.

http://blogs.telegra...that-never-was/

Honestly this deserves a completely different thread. It really has little to do with the article in question. Honestly I never felt the NWS/NHC overhyped a thing, we can thank the media for that one. But the NWS/NHC seems to get lumped into it. Oh, and forget that there were 20+ deaths and billions of dollars of destruction. Threats need to be relayed, and I can't give the NHC more than enough due credit for suggesting the possible track/intensity possibilities without hyping the storm. They did their job as expected, and as far as I could tell, the local NWS offices did as well.

[QVectorman]

There are hoards of pissed off people in Massachusetts with basically the same sentiment as that article and about 1 in 100 actually votes anything but Ted Kennedy left in this State.

Please leave the political BS for the OT forum. You don't have to be a right winger to question all aspects of government spending.

For the record I saw the CNN piece the reporter talks about...was as bad as NBC and Michelle Krisnzky (whatever her name is) sitting in the canoe pretending to be in flood waters when two guys walk by in shoe sole deep water carrying groceries.

http://blogs.telegra...that-never-was/

OMG that video was hillarious!! I haven't laughed that hard in weeks!! Reporter tasting raw sewage...it “dosn’t taste great” and has a “sandy consistency”. ROFL

[QVectorman]

Honestly this deserves a completely different thread. It really has little to do with the article in question. Honestly I never felt the NWS/NHC overhyped a thing, we can thank the media for that one. But the NWS/NHC seems to get lumped into it. Oh, and forget that there were 20+ deaths and billions of dollars of destruction. Threats need to be relayed, and I can't give the NHC more than enough due credit for suggesting the possible track/intensity possibilities without hyping the storm. They did their job as expected, and as far as I could tell, the local NWS offices did as well.

Death to all trees!!! I say we cut down all trees!! No one should live in fear ever again of sleeping in a tent in their back yard during a hurricane and worrying a tree will fall on them! Trees were the real killers besides guys trying to swim in the ocean, surfing and jumping in flooded rivers!!

[Ababa]

What a terrible, uninformed article. None of these private companies would be in business without the NWS......and if the NWS was eliminated you'd probably have some very good private weather operations come into existance.....too bad only Goldman would be able to afford their forecasts which they would use to maximize profit on ag futures.

[Rainshadow]

http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/08/should-national-weather-service-be.html?spref=tw

[Sunny and Warm]

http://meteorologica...e.html?spref=tw

Don't you love how "anonymous" believes NWS employees should have a pay reduction equal to the minimum wage rates paid by Accu-weather. "Anonymous" must be Joel Myers.

[Kborne]

The aim of this article was to cater to those who look to cut back on the size of the federal government. There are pros and cons to keeping the NWS as well as pros and cons to transitioning to a privatized service. If the weatehr forecasting was privatized who would pay for the existing infrastructure, i.e., the satelites, weather stations, etc? That said, I think there is room for improvement and cost-cutting measures that can be realized without reducting the NWS's capabilities in issuing warnings to the public. First, why do we need so many field offices or weather offices, scattered throughout the country? With modern communications tools we should consider reducing the number of weather offices and consolidate them further into perhaps a few regional weather centers or even just one primary forecasting office and perhaps a back-up center. Why do we have the hurricane center in the middle of a hurricane-prone area and why do we have the severe storms center smack dab on the center-line of tornado alley? Putting the responsibility of issuing warnings and other weather alerts in the hands of private companies is worrisome and I think many of you either touched on it previously or are aware of the dangers. One writer earlier said there would be 10 blizzards a year...and he may have a point. The private weather forecasting companies would be more susceptible to the hype that we already acknowledge is a problem and some television networks may even buy into a private forecasting company. Also, what would happen if there were several private weather forecasting companies each issuing their own conflicting weather warnings or no warnings at all? What would the public do; would they be forced to just pick which warning (or lack of one). Right now we have a public weather service that I would hope is not in the business of hyping the weather events that occur in this nation. I don't think they do that. I do think that the NWS needs to do a much better job in forecasting. I, like many of you, go 'to the source' for my weather forecasts, to the NWS. But, and also like many of you, I go to their site a few times a day, especially when I know something is on the way or when I have an event planned. I also see how the forecasts change hourly. The POP for a particular day goes from 80% one day out, down to 10% on the day the weather event was originally forecast to take place, only to go back up to 90% when the doppler shows a big blob of red coming from the west. I can't count how many times I have seen where the NWS failed to accurately forecast the weather even hours in advance, let alone 3 days in advance. Billions of dollars spent on weather forecasting equipment, personnel, etc. and we can't get reliable weather forecasting yet. What amazes me is that I'd say only about 3-5% of the year do most people really take a close look at the weather forecasts, when severe weather is coming and the NWS (and some others) have trouble even getting that right. My point is we really only need them to be right or pretty close to it, 3-5 % of the year. As I look out the window today the forecast is simple, sunny/clear and cool today in NYC. No one is really concerned about today's weather, no one is really concerned with the rest of the week because it is supposed to stay this way for a few days. But if rain is on the way, especially for this weekend people don't want to read on Wednesday that it will rain Sunday only to have it be a clear day or vice versa and I see that quite often and that is crux of the problem. It really rings true when my local tv weather personality spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the weather we already experienced, even when it was a sunny day. No one cares about what happened with the weather especially when 'nothing' happened. We all have windows or we opened the door and went to work and experienced it first hand. The other thing I don't like is when I hear the tv weatherman say, 'ok folks, we are nowcasting'. My 5 year-old son can nowcast. That is basically forecasting by radar which is not acceptable or reliable. So basically, billions of dollars in weather forecasting equipment and personnel are thrown right out the window you are using to 'nowcast'? You missed the forecast, you didn't forecast the thunderstorms, the winds and the rain so now you making it up for it by doing exactly what everyone in my neighborhood is doing? And also, I hear a lot about hype in the news media on this board, but on this board I see a lot of wishcasting.

[Analog96]

The beauty of weather is there is a need for co-existence among private weather firms as well as the NWS. What this silly article does not even mention is the mass amount of data the NWS provides that would not otherwise exist which is used daily by the private weather industry. From the numerical models, the complex data observation network used by those models, the upper air program, satellite program, RADAR network, etc. That is ALL free and provided by the government/NWS. This free service is what provides the private weather corporations the potential profits they enjoy, and it is what gives the public the essential weather information they need to minimize socio-economic disasters. Everyone wants to politicize complex issues these days with simplistic political ideologies/beliefs, but nothing is ever so simple. Yes, there are actually beneficial government programs out there, and yes, there is most definitely a place for private weather companies, but claiming competition and "innovation" is good for everyone is not necessarily true, especially in meteorology. This is a science, and scientific information should not be privatized to the point nobody can afford it except the richest/wealthiest or large companies/corporations. Thankfully most in private weather (note "most", not all) understand the relationship, even if the dolts at FOX/CEI do not.

The US government (National Weather Service) provides accurate, basic, point-by-point forecasts, and issues watches, warnings, and advisories when necessary, as stated in their mission, to "protect lives and property", at no cost to the general public (aside from taxes). This is available to EVERYONE in the United States, and can be obtained via Internet, NWR, and other media sources.

If you wish to pay more $$ out of your pocket, MORE is available through private weather services. They are also fairly accurate, because private weather services also hire degreed meteorologists. But they provide things such as specific "client-based" forecasts. You might need want an alert when lightning, 30- MPH winds, rain over one inch, snow over one inch, etc, is going to occur. You might need a private phone call every day at a certain hour with a forecast. Private services provide this, which the National Weather Service can not.

It depends on what you need. For most people, the National Weather Service is more than adequate. If you need specialized weather information, we have private companies. But the two can and should coexist.

[Analog96]

Don't you love how "anonymous" believes NWS employees should have a pay reduction equal to the minimum wage rates paid by Accu-weather. "Anonymous" must be Joel Myers.

Not necessarily. Most people don't have a clue what it takes to get a meteorology degree, or, for that matter, to produce a weather forecast.

[snowman21]

Not necessarily. Most people don't have a clue what it takes to get a meteorology degree, or, for that matter, to produce a weather forecast.

I thought you just have to have good hair and be able to point at a green screen? Is that not right?

[J.Mike]

I WISH THE NWS WOULD LOSE THE ALL CAP FORMATTING.

[J.Mike]

I thought you just have to have good hair and be able to point at a green screen? Is that not right?

Ask Lou - he's at least got that right.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

The US government (National Weather Service) provides accurate, basic, point-by-point forecasts, and issues watches, warnings, and advisories when necessary, as stated in their mission, to "protect lives and property", at no cost to the general public (aside from taxes). This is available to EVERYONE in the United States, and can be obtained via Internet, NWR, and other media sources.

If you wish to pay more $ out of your pocket, MORE is available through private weather services. They are also fairly accurate, because private weather services also hire degreed meteorologists. But they provide things such as specific "client-based" forecasts. You might need want an alert when lightning, 30- MPH winds, rain over one inch, snow over one inch, etc, is going to occur. You might need a private phone call every day at a certain hour with a forecast. Private services provide this, which the National Weather Service can not.

It depends on what you need. For most people, the National Weather Service is more than adequate. If you need specialized weather information, we have private companies. But the two can and should coexist.

My point mainly was where is the outrage and allowed separate threads for all the other left wing outlets that wrote pieces that to one extent or another talk about the poor intensity forecast and hype? There's pretty much something on every talk radio station up and down the coast (webcasts) and in every newspaper including the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29forecast.html

No I don't think they overhyped it but I don't totally understand the reasoning behind the slow downgrading of a storm that was barely delivering hurricane force winds at landfall in NC.

It sets us up for the next event, people think they just survived a mean Cat 1 when in reality they survived gusts in the high tropical storm force range at best in most cases.

[k***]

The aim of this article was to cater to those who look to cut back on the size of the federal government. There are pros and cons to keeping the NWS as well as pros and cons to transitioning to a privatized service. If the weatehr forecasting was privatized who would pay for the existing infrastructure, i.e., the satelites, weather stations, etc? That said, I think there is room for improvement and cost-cutting measures that can be realized without reducting the NWS's capabilities in issuing warnings to the public. First, why do we need so many field offices or weather offices, scattered throughout the country? With modern communications tools we should consider reducing the number of weather offices and consolidate them further into perhaps a few regional weather centers or even just one primary forecasting office and perhaps a back-up center. Why do we have the hurricane center in the middle of a hurricane-prone area and why do we have the severe storms center smack dab on the center-line of tornado alley? Putting the responsibility of issuing warnings and other weather alerts in the hands of private companies is worrisome and I think many of you either touched on it previously or are aware of the dangers. One writer earlier said there would be 10 blizzards a year...and he may have a point. The private weather forecasting companies would be more susceptible to the hype that we already acknowledge is a problem and some television networks may even buy into a private forecasting company. Also, what would happen if there were several private weather forecasting companies each issuing their own conflicting weather warnings or no warnings at all? What would the public do; would they be forced to just pick which warning (or lack of one). Right now we have a public weather service that I would hope is not in the business of hyping the weather events that occur in this nation. I don't think they do that. I do think that the NWS needs to do a much better job in forecasting. I, like many of you, go 'to the source' for my weather forecasts, to the NWS. But, and also like many of you, I go to their site a few times a day, especially when I know something is on the way or when I have an event planned. I also see how the forecasts change hourly. The POP for a particular day goes from 80% one day out, down to 10% on the day the weather event was originally forecast to take place, only to go back up to 90% when the doppler shows a big blob of red coming from the west. I can't count how many times I have seen where the NWS failed to accurately forecast the weather even hours in advance, let alone 3 days in advance. Billions of dollars spent on weather forecasting equipment, personnel, etc. and we can't get reliable weather forecasting yet. What amazes me is that I'd say only about 3-5% of the year do most people really take a close look at the weather forecasts, when severe weather is coming and the NWS (and some others) have trouble even getting that right. My point is we really only need them to be right or pretty close to it, 3-5 % of the year. As I look out the window today the forecast is simple, sunny/clear and cool today in NYC. No one is really concerned about today's weather, no one is really concerned with the rest of the week because it is supposed to stay this way for a few days. But if rain is on the way, especially for this weekend people don't want to read on Wednesday that it will rain Sunday only to have it be a clear day or vice versa and I see that quite often and that is crux of the problem. It really rings true when my local tv weather personality spends an inordinate amount of time talking about the weather we already experienced, even when it was a sunny day. No one cares about what happened with the weather especially when 'nothing' happened. We all have windows or we opened the door and went to work and experienced it first hand. The other thing I don't like is when I hear the tv weatherman say, 'ok folks, we are nowcasting'. My 5 year-old son can nowcast. That is basically forecasting by radar which is not acceptable or reliable. So basically, billions of dollars in weather forecasting equipment and personnel are thrown right out the window you are using to 'nowcast'? You missed the forecast, you didn't forecast the thunderstorms, the winds and the rain so now you making it up for it by doing exactly what everyone in my neighborhood is doing? And also, I hear a lot about hype in the news media on this board, but on this board I see a lot of wishcasting.

This is a really misinformed post...too bad it wasn't broken into easily answerable paragraphs

[Mencken_Fan]

it costs $4/year per citizen for the NWS....that's definitely the solution to our fiscal problems...I'm sure all private forecasting companies would be super profitable without all their free government data...

Successfully completing the greatest transfer in wealth (from the working and middle class to the truly wealthy) in history during the first decade of this century apparently isn't enough. If not with NOAA, where can it end?

Let's face it, the handful at the top (and it is only a handful) has seen such magnificent gains from their use of lobbyists, think tanks, etc. there's little reason to expect them to stop. The masses have only one tool against the oligarchy; education. And looking at the progress we've made with that since I graduated high school in 1970, I wouldn't bank on it.

Without doubt, the greatest irony in our nation today is lemming-like Middle America carrying placards in support of those who would economically destroy them.

H.L. Mencken is laughing hysterically in his grave.

[djr5001]

From Fox News article:

"In 2008, they found that the NWS’s temperature predictions were worse than every private-sector competitor including the Weather Channel, Intellicast, and Weather Underground. "

From Weather Underground:

"U.S. forecasts and advisories on wunderground.com are generated by the

National Weather Service

(NWS) that issues forecasts specific for every county in the U.S. two to four times per day, or more often when conditions warrant. Forecasts are also pulled from the National Digital Forecast Database (NDFD) that gives granular forecasts down to the postcode with hourly detail."

[DoctorMu]

My point mainly was where is the outrage and allowed separate threads for all the other left wing outlets that wrote pieces that to one extent or another talk about the poor intensity forecast and hype? There's pretty much something on every talk radio station up and down the coast (webcasts) and in every newspaper including the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.c...29forecast.html

No I don't think they overhyped it but I don't totally understand the reasoning behind the slow downgrading of a storm that was barely delivering hurricane force winds at landfall in NC.

It sets us up for the next event, people think they just survived a mean Cat 1 when in reality they survived gusts in the high tropical storm force range at best in most cases.

The dry air entraining before landfall in NC made a significant difference. Ironically the large size and therefore interaction with dry air sucked in from Texas was a culprit. As in any complex system, the effect of unusual perturbations is challenging to predict. I would not expect private vendors to do better. They don't have the infrastructure...how did the satellites perch themselves in orbit? It certainly wasn't IBM or Accuweather.

[Kborne]

As you can see, I don't post much. I just read and try to learn. But you're going to gig me on my lack of paragraphs? On this board? Most people don't pay attention to grammar, let along paragraph indents.

This is a really misinformed post...too bad it wasn't broken into easily answerable paragraphs

[AtticaFanatica]

why do we have the severe storms center smack dab on the center-line of tornado alley?

Really?