Re: Rick Santorum bill may restrict public access to NOAA weather
data
Harry.Krause 2 June 2005 03:23:55
jomason@cba.ua.edu wrote:> I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought> I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by> the Associated Press.>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,> the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm> with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability> of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for> free to the general public. Among the products removed from public> access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and> Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS> would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and> the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided> by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and> repackage it for target markets.">
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.> Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the> National Weather Service, his political action committee received a> $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading> provider of weather data.">
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might> want to contact the senators from your state.>
John>
I had no idea you could buy Rick Sanctimonious for two large. It's so very Republican to take data the taxpayers pay for and give it to private enterprise so the latter can sell it back to us.
Shortwave Sportfishing 31 May 2005 04:11:34 [ permanent link ]
On 30 May 2005 16:56:21 -0700, jomason@cba.ua.edu wrote:
I prefer to believe the news sources rather than accuweather, which>would stand to gain from any restrictions placed on information>disseminated by NOAA. You can choose to believe a for-profit>competitor, but I don't.
What I believe in is listening to both sides and developing my opinion based on all aspects of the issue - not just one.
Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up your mind.
Just for the record, if you go back a few days when this first came up, I made my opinion known. Go find it.
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:24:11 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
The NWS has several local offices at various places around the country and> are staffed with full time meteorologists who are familiar with local> conditions, patterns and information. AccuWeather and the Weather Channel> cannot hope, even with the information, to provide that kind of local> "nuance" with respect to weather.>
I'm four square on the side of the NWS on this one - if AccuWeather or the> Weather Channel want the real time data, let them access it as a cost of> doing business - it will help offset the costs of the NWS to boot. :>)>
Sorry for the rant.
First, I don't consider it a rant, and I'm quite interested in your take on this. I'm a little confused here. I've always thought that the private weather services generally did use NWS data for their forecasts. Correct? What does this bill propose to change? Is it just for eliminating the lag time?
Personally, I don't much like the sound of this bill. It seems to leave too much to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, among other things.
Personally, I don't much like the sound of this bill. It seems to leave>>too much to the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, among other>>things.>
It also sounds like it will shut off a huge amount of incoming raw weather data, which is gathered by volunteers (as per Tom's earlier post).
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote> Well, that's a good point, but it hasn't been all that different> through the years. What concerns me is taking the NWS private which is> a distinct possibility.>
In either case, I don't like it and I've made my opinion known.>
Again, sorry for the length.>
No apology necessary. IMHO this is a very interesting and definitely on-topic discussion.
<jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought> I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by> the Associated Press.>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,> the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm> with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability> of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for> free to the general public. Among the products removed from public> access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and> Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS> would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and> the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided> by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and> repackage it for target markets.">
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.> Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the> National Weather Service, his political action committee received a> $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading> provider of weather data.">
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might> want to contact the senators from your state.
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, then you know what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.
NOYB wrote:> <jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message > news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought>>I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by>>the Associated Press.>>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,>>the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm>>with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability>>of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for>>free to the general public. Among the products removed from public>>access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and>>Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS>>would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and>>the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided>>by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and>>repackage it for target markets.">>
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.>>Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the>>National Weather Service, his political action committee received a>>$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading>>provider of weather data.">>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might>>want to contact the senators from your state.>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, then > you know> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.
NOAA is reasonable accurate up here, but for predicting Bay wave heights. Up to a point, I just double NOAA's predicted wave heights, especially when the prediction is 1' or less.
You're in a much tougher area for forecasting. Using data that is not generated by NOAA, who is giving you the best predictions of ocean conditions?
"Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2KOdnZv2tYY-PQDfRVn-2w@comcast.com...> NOYB wrote:>> <jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message >> news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought>>>I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by>>>the Associated Press.>>>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,>>>the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm>>>with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability>>>of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for>>>free to the general public. Among the products removed from public>>>access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and>>>Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS>>>would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and>>>the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided>>>by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and>>>repackage it for target markets.">>>
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.>>>Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the>>>National Weather Service, his political action committee received a>>>$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading>>>provider of weather data.">>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might>>>want to contact the senators from your state.>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, >> then you know>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>
NOAA is reasonable accurate up here, but for predicting Bay wave heights. > Up to a point, I just double NOAA's predicted wave heights, especially > when the prediction is 1' or less.>
You're in a much tougher area for forecasting. Using data that is not > generated by NOAA, who is giving you the best predictions of ocean > conditions?
The day of any trip, I use Weatherbug to get current windspeed and direction. From there, I know what the seas will be. Anything from 0-10 mph out of the SW, W, or NW means 0-2 feet. 10-15 mph means 2-4 feet. 15-20 mph means 3-5. 20+ mph means 6 ft or more.
Anything out of the NE, E, or SW means the Gulf will be flat out to about 1-2 miles. Beyond that, sea heights build according to windspeed again.
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday and Friday.
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas Thursday night!
"Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2KOdnZv2tYY-PQDfRVn-2w@comcast.com...> NOYB wrote:>> <jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message >> news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought>>>I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by>>>the Associated Press.>>>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,>>>the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm>>>with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability>>>of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for>>>free to the general public. Among the products removed from public>>>access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and>>>Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS>>>would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and>>>the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided>>>by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and>>>repackage it for target markets.">>>
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.>>>Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the>>>National Weather Service, his political action committee received a>>>$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading>>>provider of weather data.">>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might>>>want to contact the senators from your state.>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, >> then you know>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>
NOAA is reasonable accurate up here, but for predicting Bay wave heights. > Up to a point, I just double NOAA's predicted wave heights, especially > when the prediction is 1' or less.>
You're in a much tougher area for forecasting. Using data that is not > generated by NOAA, who is giving you the best predictions of ocean > conditions?
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday and > Friday.>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas > Thursday night!>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday >> and Friday.>>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas >> Thursday night!>>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the > Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay > Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday >>>and Friday.>>>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas >>>Thursday night!>>>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the >>Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay >>Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!>
Hang 10.>
You can bet the serious surfers will be out in it, at the south end of Virginia Beach near Rudee's Inlet, and on the other side of the inlet. They live for these waves.
"Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3g5upbFarb5nU1@individual.net...> NOYB wrote:>> "Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:3g5tpaFappdfU1@individual.net...>>
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday >>>>and Friday.>>>>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas >>>>Thursday night!>>>>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the >>>Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay >>>Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!>>
Hang 10.>>
You can bet the serious surfers will be out in it, at the south end of > Virginia Beach near Rudee's Inlet, and on the other side of the inlet. > They live for these waves.>
Before you head out on the water next time, try checking that site I listed and tell me if you find it as accurate as I have.
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday >>>>>and Friday.>>>>>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas >>>>>Thursday night!>>>>>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the >>>>Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay >>>>Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!>>>
Hang 10.>>>
You can bet the serious surfers will be out in it, at the south end of >>Virginia Beach near Rudee's Inlet, and on the other side of the inlet. >>They live for these waves.>>
Before you head out on the water next time, try checking that site I listed > and tell me if you find it as accurate as I have.>
I will do that. What I noticed, though, is that there wasn't much differentiation in the parts of the Bay I frequent. That may be a quirk of this forecast, but my experience tells me that the waves heights over various parts of the Bay can vary widely, no matter what the forecast says.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:27:48 GMT, "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote:
"Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:3g5upbFarb5nU1@individual.net...>> NOYB wrote:>>> "Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:3g5tpaFappdfU1@individual.net...>>>
Looks like you have some nasty boating conditions coming this Thursday >>>>>and Friday.>>>>>
What area is 37 25'N 76 15'W? They're predicted to get 10-12 foot seas >>>>>Thursday night!>>>>>
The general area is around the ocean entrance to Chesapeake Bay from the >>>>Atlantic, includes the DelMarVa Peninsula, Norfolk, Chesapeake Bay >>>>Bridge-Tunnel, extends down past Virginia Beach. Surf's up!>>>
Hang 10.>>>
You can bet the serious surfers will be out in it, at the south end of >> Virginia Beach near Rudee's Inlet, and on the other side of the inlet. >> They live for these waves.>>
Before you head out on the water next time, try checking that site I listed >and tell me if you find it as accurate as I have.>
The charts I saw cover the bay from the Potomac River south. They don't get up to the mid- and northern-bay areas. Personally, I think the 8-10 foot wave predictions are garbage. Those would be making worldwide news as the "Chesapeake Bay Tsunami"!
Here's the NWS prediction for the northern end of that area:
ANZ534-012230- /X.ROU.KLWX.MA.F.0000.000000T0000Z-000000T0000Z/ CHESAPEAKE BAY FROM DRUM POINT TO SMITH POINT- 1023 AM EDT WED JUN 1 2005
THU NE WINDS 10 KT. WAVES 1 FT. RAIN LIKELY.
THU NIGHT NE WINDS 10 TO 15 KT...BECOMING E 5 TO 10 KT AFTER MIDNIGHT. WAVES 2 FT. RAIN LIKELY.
FRI SE WINDS 5 TO 10 KT. WAVES 1 FT OR LESS. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND TSTMS.
FRI NIGHT S WINDS 5 TO 10 KT. WAVES 1 FT OR LESS. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS.
SAT SW WINDS 5 TO 10 KT. WAVES 1 FT OR LESS. A CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS.
-- John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD
"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:BUgne.12374$M36.3045@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
<jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message > news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought>> I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by>> the Associated Press.>>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,>> the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm>> with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability>> of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for>> free to the general public. Among the products removed from public>> access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and>> Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS>> would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and>> the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided>> by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and>> repackage it for target markets.">>
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.>> Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the>> National Weather Service, his political action committee received a>> $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading>> provider of weather data.">>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might>> want to contact the senators from your state.>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, > then you know> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>
I agree. Especially on reporting and forecasting wave heights.
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:lBine.11388$uR4.4173@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
"Harry.Krause" <harry.krause@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2KOdnZv2tYY-PQDfRVn-2w@comcast.com...>> NOYB wrote:>>> <jomason@cba.ua.edu> wrote in message >>> news:1117491386.866174.244050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>>
I know that aspects of this have been posted previously, but I thought>>>>I would provide an update I saw in today's newspapers and a release by>>>>the Associated Press.>>>>
According to several articles in the news, "Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.,>>>>the U.S. Senate's third-ranking Republican, stirred up a growing storm>>>>with a bill introduced on April 14 that would restrict the availability>>>>of weather information provided now by the National Weather Service for>>>>free to the general public. Among the products removed from public>>>>access would be weather data and radar through the National Oceanic and>>>>Atmospheric Administration's Web sites. Though Santorum claims the NWS>>>>would compete unfairly with such commercial sites as AccuWeather and>>>>the Weather Channel, both for-profit services use basic data provided>>>>by the NWS as well as other information from other sources and>>>>repackage it for target markets.">>>>
According to a release by the Associated Press, "Two days before Sen.>>>>Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the>>>>National Weather Service, his political action committee received a>>>>$2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading>>>>provider of weather data.">>>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan sailing events, you might>>>>want to contact the senators from your state.>>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, >>> then you know>>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>>
NOAA is reasonable accurate up here, but for predicting Bay wave heights. >> Up to a point, I just double NOAA's predicted wave heights, especially >> when the prediction is 1' or less.>>
You're in a much tougher area for forecasting. Using data that is not >> generated by NOAA, who is giving you the best predictions of ocean >> conditions?>
The day of any trip, I use Weatherbug to get current windspeed and > direction. <snip>
Shortwave Sportfishing 2 June 2005 02:53:16 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" <me@no-one.com> wrote:
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message >news:BUgne.12374$M36.3045@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
~~ snippage ~~
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water, >> then you know>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>
I agree. Especially on reporting and forecasting wave heights.
I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about - they are pretty accurate up in my area.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <emaildisguised@askme.com> wrote in message news:d1fs91l88aveb2vcls63ftu611fo8d7odi@4ax.com...> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" <me@no-one.com> wrote:>
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message>>news:BUgne.12374$M36.3045@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
~~ snippage ~~>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water,>>> then you know>>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>>
I agree. Especially on reporting and forecasting wave heights.>
I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about - they are> pretty accurate up in my area.>
Later,>
Perhaps a regional issue Tom.
Very common....wave heights of 1-2 reported by NOAA on the western and central basin of Lake Erie when the Lake was capping at at least 3-5. Thankfully I am within a mile of the Lake and can easily drive to confirm conditions before we headed out.
I can report more inaccurate wave height reports of Lake conditions than I can of accurate reports over my 25+ years of boating on the Great Lakes.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <emaildisguised@askme.com> wrote in message news:d1fs91l88aveb2vcls63ftu611fo8d7odi@4ax.com...> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" <me@no-one.com> wrote:>
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message>>news:BUgne.12374$M36.3045@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>
~~ snippage ~~>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water,>>> then you know>>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>>
I agree. Especially on reporting and forecasting wave heights.>
I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about - they are> pretty accurate up in my area.>
"NOYB" <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote in message news:GpidndZdre0x3wPfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...>
"Shortwave Sportfishing" <emaildisguised@askme.com> wrote in message > news:d1fs91l88aveb2vcls63ftu611fo8d7odi@4ax.com...>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" <me@no-one.com> wrote:>>
"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message>>>news:BUgne.12374$M36.3045@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
~~ snippage ~~>>
If you use NOAA weather information to plan *any* day out on the water,>>>> then you know>>>> what it's like to be frustrated by inaccurate forecasting. NOAA sucks.>>>
I agree. Especially on reporting and forecasting wave heights.>>
I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about - they are>> pretty accurate up in my area.>>
Not by me.>
I have yet to find a consistently reliable source for weather forecasting. Have you?
