wrote in message
oups.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.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.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.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

Later,

Tom

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.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.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

I think publicly-paid-for-data should be available equally to *all* at no
charge...and that includes private companies. Afterall, they pay taxes too.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:50:09 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:23:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.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.

Just a tad of hyperbole there me thinks. Up around here, they are
pretty good. And if you are used to an area, you know damn well when
the wind is from the SW 10-15 you'd best stay the hell out of Fisher's
Island Sound. :)

But that wasn't the point of the discussion - the use of publicly paid
for data to be used exclusively by private interests and all the
attendant complications and implications for the future was the
discussion.

I think publicly-paid-for-data should be available equally to *all* at no
charge...and that includes private companies. Afterall, they pay taxes too.

I agree, but you need to look beyond being fair. There hasn't been,
in this discussion, any argument against sharing the data. The
problem is what use that data is being put to and just how it will
affect the functionality of the NWS.

The discussion pretty much detailed what and where the problems might
lay with this proposal.

Read through the thread - it's pretty interesting even if I say so
myself. :)

Later,

Tom

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
oups.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.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.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,

Tom

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.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,

Tom


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" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.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?

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
arthlink.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?

This is the one I use for wave height predictions for my area:
https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...336/21/0-0-1/2