Fox News has Outdone Themselves This Time

[k***]

Really?

we could move it to west virginia and then the cost of overhead would be cheaper

[AtticaFanatica]

VORTEX-2 was a great success, but it would have been even better if they had it at the North Pole.

[NaoPos]

Really?

That deserves a "really really?" hahaha... Why have solar panels under direct sunlight is prob the next question!!

this thread is pure entertainment.

to all the NWS employees.. Keep up the great work. Its a job that people don't respect outside of the weather community. You guys have saved countless lives this year. I support you 110%

[yl715]

I beleive the story is not that much out of line...all government agencies could use a little ''tweaking'' ... if the NWS is that good , why do almost allmost major businesses,industries,companies,ect. that depend on weather, pay for private or their own weather forecasting ??

Great point. The market speaks for itself- if the government's services were so competitive, then why do so many firms turn to the private market for weather products? Sure the nws provides important services that could not be provided by the free market ( capital investment that is uneconomical )- but as any government agency, a lack of profit incentive limits potential efficiency.

[AtticaFanatica]

Great point. The market speaks for itself- if the government's services were so competitive, then why do so many firms turn to the private market for weather products? Sure the nws provides important services that could not be provided by the free market ( capital investment that is uneconomical )- but as any government agency, a lack of profit incentive limits potential efficiency.

Private companies cater to services that the NWS doesn't attempt to compete in because they couldn't do so in an efficient manner. Private companies are filling holes, not out-competing.

[yl715]

Private companies cater to services that the NWS doesn't attempt to compete in because they couldn't do so in an efficient manner. Private companies are filling holes, not out-competing.

Can you elaborate? What services do private companies offer that the NWS does not?

[Hugo]

Great point. The market speaks for itself- if the government's services were so competitive, then why do so many firms turn to the private market for weather products? Sure the nws provides important services that could not be provided by the free market ( capital investment that is uneconomical )- but as any government agency, a lack of profit incentive limits potential efficiency.

This is nonsense.

The private sector is concerned with profit. The non-profit sector is concerned with public benefit. The public sector is concerned with allocating and providing goods and services.

Simply because the chief concern behind one sector is different from another does not make it better.

[AtticaFanatica]

Can you elaborate? What services do private companies offer that the NWS does not?

Targeted forecasts for individual businesses or individuals themselves (e.g., a ML baseball team), specific forecasts for agricultural (crops, livestock, etc.), products for individual towns and municipalities (e.g., snow forecasts for a local DOT, hydrological services for a town's water supply). Essentially, meteorological services that require targeted information on space and time scales that the NWS could not and should not attempt because it couldn't be done efficiently.

[catoctin wx]

Can you elaborate? What services do private companies offer that the NWS does 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.

[Ed Lizard]

Go back to the days when the Weather Service was part of the Army. With his prior service, Isohume would be the commander of KGSP, and people could retire at half pay at 20 years and 2/3rds pay at 30 years, meaning more openings for new mets from school.

US Navy Captain Stacy Stewart, Purple Heart in Iraq and Silver Star in Afghanistan, wouldn't just be NHC head, he'd be head of NOAA. And sea going NOAA research officers already wear Naval uniforms and have Naval ranks. The WP-3Ds and G-IVs could transfer to the Air Force like the 53rd WRS.

[Rainshadow]

Great point. The market speaks for itself- if the government's services were so competitive, then why do so many firms turn to the private market for weather products? Sure the nws provides important services that could not be provided by the free market ( capital investment that is uneconomical )- but as any government agency, a lack of profit incentive limits potential efficiency.

How is our operational staff of fourteen suppose to cater to the individual/tailored needs of the 10 million people and hundreds of thousands of businesses within our warning and forecast area?

Our GPRA goals and mos verification are a matter of public records and increased funding is tied to meeting or exceeding these goals. This started in the Clinton administration and has been carried through with every administration since.

So please try again.

[am19psu]

Private companies cater to services that the NWS doesn't attempt to compete in because they couldn't do so in an efficient manner. Private companies are filling holes, not out-competing.

This.

[am19psu]

How is our operational staff of fourteen suppose to cater to the individual/tailored needs of the 10 million people and hundreds of thousands of businesses within our warning and forecast area?

Our GPRA goals and mos verification are a matter of public records and increased funding is tied to meeting or exceeding these goals. This started in the Clinton administration and has been carried through with every administration since.

So please try again.

This too.

[Ed Lizard]

This.

I will say, I don't recall any NWS mets here touting Irene to get back up to Cat 4 strength once it dropped below Cat 3 strength, like some WeatherBell met did.

[am19psu]

I will say, I don't recall any NWS mets here touting Irene to get back up to Cat 4 strength once it dropped below Cat 3 strength, like some WeatherBell met did.

Let's not lump Bastardi and Tolleris with all of the good private mets here.

EDIT: I should elaborate - I actually think Bastardi is a good meteorologist who is prone to overhyping East Coast events. Tolleris is a hack.

[baroclinic_instability]

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.

Yes, you are generally right on point here. Posts like this lead me to believe your WOTY tag will be rescinded this year.

[Rainshadow]

This.

Exactly.

[baroclinic_instability]

Targeted forecasts for individual businesses or individuals themselves (e.g., a ML baseball team), specific forecasts for agricultural (crops, livestock, etc.), products for individual towns and municipalities (e.g., snow forecasts for a local DOT, hydrological services for a town's water supply). Essentially, meteorological services that require targeted information on space and time scales that the NWS could not and should not attempt because it couldn't be done efficiently.

I almost feel we need a thread which discusses the inner workings of the private/public sector meteorology programs in the U.S.

The simple fact is we (the United States) have the most amazing weather network in the world spanning the public and private weather sectors. It is a wonderful example of government (public) dollars being used efficiently for both profit (private weather corporations) and for public safety/mitigation of socio-economic disasters (public weather/NWS/university). The socio-economic benefit is staggering.

[Cary]

Say what...??

A number of TV stations own and operate their own doppler radars

[Ed Lizard]

All 3 of our (maybe the Fox affiliate does as well) network affiliates have their own local dopplers. Of the ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates, only the CBS affiliate, KHOU, has all degreed mets on staff. The KTRC 'met's are all college BAs in journalism or related fields with the 60 hours no science/math standing in front of a green screen MSU certificate. Now, I couldn't operate the graphics like he could, but the KPRC "chief met" Ken Doll makes me, an uneducated amateur, cringe when he starts talking 3rd grade clashing airmasses type crap, and they are wholly dependent on HGX (NWS Houston/Galveston) for severe storm warnings.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

At the end of the day the Philly.com article has it right. I think some of you are too far into the weather community to view what is being written from the standpoint of the general public. You don't get that it's John Q that votes for the people that approve the funding which is partially why you don't understand that the public view of this storm and the hype DOES directly play into the calls for downsizing NOAA etc.

"Jason Samenow, chief meteorologist with the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang, which is receiving kudos for its accurate and restrained reporting, said last night that some cable anchors were still reporting that Irene could strike New Jersey and New York as a major hurricane long after his team determined that it clearly was weakening." "Jarvis said bluntly last night that his warning to many journalists is that "you've ruined your credibility. The next time when it is a Category 5 storm . . . it's going to sound like this one.""

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110829_CATEGORY_FEH__So__why_the_big_Irene_blowup_.html

We need NOAA. I don't trust a private firm to do what they do and never will. That said the post Katrina period has been an interesting one for the NHC in particular. Sadly the media runs with everything NOAA says and as they themselves pointed out that creates some bad situations.

The two go hand in hand, storm accuracy and credibility directly relate to funding.

[stormtracker]

How is our operational staff of fourteen suppose to cater to the individual/tailored needs of the 10 million people and hundreds of thousands of businesses within our warning and forecast area?

Our GPRA goals and mos verification are a matter of public records and increased funding is tied to meeting or exceeding these goals. This started in the Clinton administration and has been carried through with every administration since.

So please try again.

Nice piece of slam dunk pwnage.

[baroclinic_instability]

At the end of the day the Philly.com article has it right. I think some of you are too far into the weather community to view what is being written from the standpoint of the general public. You don't get that it's John Q that votes for the people that approve the funding which is partially why you don't understand that the public view of this storm and the hype DOES directly play into the calls for downsizing NOAA etc.

"Jason Samenow, chief meteorologist with the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang, which is receiving kudos for its accurate and restrained reporting, said last night that some cable anchors were still reporting that Irene could strike New Jersey and New York as a major hurricane long after his team determined that it clearly was weakening." "Jarvis said bluntly last night that his warning to many journalists is that "you've ruined your credibility. The next time when it is a Category 5 storm . . . it's going to sound like this one.""

http://www.philly.co...ne_blowup_.html

We need NOAA. I don't trust a private firm to do what they do and never will. That said the post Katrina period has been an interesting one for the NHC in particular. Sadly the media runs with everything NOAA says and as they themselves pointed out that creates some bad situations.

The two go hand in hand, storm accuracy and credibility directly relate to funding.

No quite the opposite, we are all very well aware of how portrayals of weather effect John Q and their reaction to it. It is something we deal with on a daily basis. Threat potential and the associated information dissemination and false alarms and the public reaction to it. It has been an ongoing battle from day one, and social science is a big and important part of meteorology. Whether it is tornado warnings/severe warnings, winter weather, or hurricane information, it is something we are well aware of. Unfortunately the public seems to forget events like Katrina until it happens again...

It is a daily battle of warning of potential hazard and mitigating false alarms. The information needs to be relayed in a timely manner, but we obviously can't hype big storms at day 15.

[baroclinic_instability]

In this media driven day and age where hype gets the headlines, the products and weather warnings put out by various organizations (for the big events) are magnified many times over. This can be good and bad. April 27th was an event where I saw the positive potential of the media "hyping" a storm event before it occurred. It can also act in a negative manner like this event.

[eurojosh]

Who needs a centralized, go-to, authoritative, public weather service? Without it, I imagine a phone call, somewhere in Oklahama, in the year 2015:

"Ma, NBC has issued a tornado warning for your house!"

"What are you talking about? I'm watching Fox and they say it's passing 30 miles south of us."

"Well, hang on, AccuWx has issued a Tornado Alert!"

"What's an alert?"

"It's in between a warning and a watch, I think it's the same as CBS's Tornado HeadsUP ®"

"Well, I only trust CNN Weather, and they say it's going to stay sunny with..."

(Phone cuts off to noise that sounds like a train engine)

[lsukev]

For those of you talking of being misinformed, there is no such thing as un-biased journalism in this country... hasn't been since it's inception... so please get real.

I think that the NWS has its place. Sure they have been wrong, but I trust them far more than I trust places like TWC that try to forecast for the entire country from one office in Atlanta. All of their glitzy blondes and nifty graphics don't make up for the fact that their forecasts are by-and-large worthless. How can you give a detailed forecast for the Sterling, VA area when you have thousands of other cities to worry about?

Take ratings out of news, and keep the NWS.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

No quite the opposite, we are all very well aware of how portrayals of weather effect John Q and their reaction to it. It is something we deal with on a daily basis. Threat potential and the associated information dissemination and false alarms and the public reaction to it. It has been an ongoing battle from day one, and social science is a big and important part of meteorology. Whether it is tornado warnings/severe warnings, winter weather, or hurricane information, it is something we are well aware of. Unfortunately the public seems to forget events like Katrina until it happens again...

It is a daily battle of warning of potential hazard and mitigating false alarms. The information needs to be relayed in a timely manner, but we obviously can't hype big storms at day 15.

All true, but there is a direct connection between the hype, perceived busts, and talk/push for the NWS to be downsized. It almost always happens after big perceived public busts one way or the other.

Some of our friends at CWG just put up a great post on their blog which as I said has important implications trailing back to NWS funding, size etc. :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang

"Michaels’ notion that false alarms, even if “near-misses” can backfire seems supported by a recent Georgetown University study “Why Near-Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual’s Protective Response to Hurricanes” published in the academic journal Risk Analysis. The study finds:A near-miss occurs when a good outcome happens but only because of chance. Although the chance-dependent nature of near-misses may be acknowledged, these good outcomes may come to be seen as more of a sure thing. People with near-miss information are more likely to choose a riskier option than people without near-miss information, and this observation has important implications for risk communication."

[phlwx]

In this media driven day and age where hype gets the headlines, the products and weather warnings put out by various organizations (for the big events) are magnified many times over. This can be good and bad. April 27th was an event where I saw the positive potential of the media "hyping" a storm event before it occurred. It can also act in a negative manner like this event.

The only ones that, IMO, overhyped were TWC and JB. TWC's coverage was putrid in the run-up to the event with the mass hype (unprecedented, worst of our lifetime, Cantore with some of his silly questions in NY on Friday night). JB is JB...but because he is loud he gets a mouthpiece.

Local media wasn't overhyping it too much -- I do think some of the calls were outlandish in Philadelphia (100 mph gusts at the Shore was nowhere near going to verify) and some of the in-storm coverage was awful but that's more a product of filling time.

If TWC ran their coverage like they had with Bob in '91 it probably would have been handled more appropriately.

[baroclinic_instability]

All true, but there is a direct connection between the hype, perceived busts, and talk/push for the NWS to be downsized. It almost always happens after big perceived public busts one way or the other.

Some of our friends at CWG just put up a great post on their blog which as I said has important implications trailing back to NWS funding, size etc. :

http://www.washingto...al-weather-gang

"Michaels’ notion that false alarms, even if “near-misses” can backfire seems supported by a recent Georgetown University study “Why Near-Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual’s Protective Response to Hurricanes” published in the academic journal Risk Analysis. The study finds:A near-miss occurs when a good outcome happens but only because of chance. Although the chance-dependent nature of near-misses may be acknowledged, these good outcomes may come to be seen as more of a sure thing. People with near-miss information are more likely to choose a riskier option than people without near-miss information, and this observation has important implications for risk communication."

Like I said, this has been going on since the dawn of meteorology and forecasting. Irene is no different. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Even in private weather where we (at my former place of work) dealt directly with the road weather community, they barely had an even basic understanding of weather. We had the same issues there...people perceiving the forecast as a bust. A forecast is not meant to be a "yes/no" indication of an event, hence probabilities and careful wording. With the general public, there is almost NO direct correspondence and "training". In the case of Irene, some caution MUST be taken. People are calling bust as if nothing happened, but NHC rather skillfully forecast the track of Irene as well as discussed the potential impacts/forecast deviations as they always have. Unfortunately the public believes weather information just appears randomly without understanding where it is coming from. The best we can do is disseminate the information to the public. They do with it what they want. Weather events don't kill nearly as many people as they did 50 years ago, and the economic losses are better handled through proper emergency management/disaster mitigation planning and response. People will call "bust" all the time just as they have in the past, but the funny thing is, the general public is luckier than ever to have all this weather information. Deaths related to weather are not common anymore for a reason.

You generally seem to have the idea I have been alluding to in the last two posts, but you keep providing information as if I don't know this.

[donsutherland1]

Great point. The market speaks for itself- if the government's services were so competitive, then why do so many firms turn to the private market for weather products?

NWS and private firms don't generally compete with one another. They complement one another. The NWS-private sector relationship is an exampe of a public-private partnership that truly works (mutual benefits for both sectors and enhanced value for all weather consumers/general public).

...but as any government agency, a lack of profit incentive limits potential efficiency.

That's an overgeneralization. Verification scores demonstrate that the NWS delivers amazing value. In 2008, the NOAA had the highest rating possible for a government agency. Unfortunately, efforts to rate the effectiveness of government departments and programs was discontinued after 2008.