|
Rick Santorum bill may restrict public access to NOAA weather data
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 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. John |
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:11:34 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up your mind. Sec. 2 b seems to state that only severe warnings will be issued. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I read it. The text of the bill can be found he http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786: |
On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:24:08 -0400, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:11:34 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Take the time to read the bill, listen to both sides, then make up your mind. Sec. 2 b seems to state that only severe warnings will be issued. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I read it. The text of the bill can be found he http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786: While you are correct, that has always been the case actually. The meat of the bill is in 2.c. Elliot Abrams has been after this for years. His contention is that the NWS is holding back information to release to the public before it is released to the private sector. In effect, he is saying that the NWS is violating the "no compete" clause of NOAA/NWS charter to provide hydrological and climatological information and data to all parties involved. He has a valid argument. The NWS is chartered to protect life and property by issuing warnings of severe or potentially severe weather and they do exactly that - issuing the warning first, then disseminating the information to other concerned parties. In effect the news agencies and private weather agencies are anywhere from five to fifteen minutes behind the NWS in providing the same information to the public. As an example, I have a pretty extensive weather station here and I provide real time data to the NWS in Taunton during severe weather situations in particular during the summer. Being a amateur radio operator, I also am a observer and I can report to the NWS using either packet reporting, online data or voice confirmation via telephone or radio. In a sense, I know what's going on pretty much before the NWS does, but my point is that the NWS has access to all my data, and the data of other weather observers in the area, as part of their data collecting effort. They use this information to develop threat assessments which they then issue to the public first. What the bill proposes to address is not limiting the information that is given to the public by the NWS, but to give equal access to the information to all concerned parties - the public and private weather agencies. Which means that they want the data that I privately provide to the NWS voluntarily - I'm not sure I want to do that. In particular I spent a lot of money on this over the years and I do it not only as a hobby, but as a service to the public agency that is charged with providing data. My concern is that by giving equal access to the real time information to everybody at the same time creates a logjam of information and the very real possibility of misinformation being promulgated by competing business interests. The possibility that the Weather Channel and AccuWeather putting out different severe weather forecasts (which by the way is not all that unusual) for areas far from where they are located begs for creating a disaster by competition. 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. Later, Tom |
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. |
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. :) ******** Precisely. It's unfair to ask the public to "pay twice" for the same information. Once through taxes paid to support and operate the NWS, and a second time through subscriptions and fees paid to private weather services. Information developed by public tax dollars should be available to the tax-paying public without enriching some hand-selected companies with the "correct" political priorities. Now of course if I could get in on this gig, I'd be all for it. :-) It would make sense to me that something here in the NW, maybe Mt. Rainier National Park, should be "privatized". Just like the weather gig, I'll just take over all the federally funded assets there and even allow the taxpayers to continue staffing and maintaining the place. In the interest of "free enterprise", I'll just collect, and keep, all the quadrupled or quintupled admission fees. The current admission fee system generates revenue that supposedly helps offset the cost of maintaining, repairing, and staffing the park. What kind of communist system is that? All those admission fees should go into the *private* sector, where the money can be spent effectively, not given to the government to be wasted. |
On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:39:32 -0400, thunder
wrote: 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? Yes - that is correct. All the pretty graphics you see on TV and on The Weather Channel are all based on NWS data stream (which was recently updated - I use the data stream, for instance, to build my own weather maps for my own amusement). What does this bill propose to change? Is it just for eliminating the lag time? What the Weather Channel and AccuWeather say this is about is that they are in competition with the NWS. They claim that the NWS cannot, by it's very charter, enter into competition with private concerns unless the NWS can provide a service that is not currently available to the public - which is true. Currently, TWC and AW cannot issue their own severe weather statements because that is the purview of NWS. What the Commercial Weather Services Association wants to do is have a universal simultaneous release of all data so they can get into the business themselves. It seems, at first glance, to be a pretty simple and fairly reasonable request. The problem is that severe weather, and all the implications of the consequences of same, are done by consensus. For example, if the Storm Prediction Center in Normam, OK sees a situation building in Alabama, for example, they will consult with the local NWS office and come to a consensus as to the potential for severe weather, the type of weather predicted, the timing of the weather event and just how severe the weather forecast should be. That all takes time. This bill would essentially say that NSWC has to release it's data to AW and TWC and the public at the same time while still in discussions with it's own offices/centers - the data has to be made available so that more than just one interpretation, the NWS's, is available. I know it's a technical sounding issue, but it leads to a couple of different scenarios. The most drastic is competing severe weather warnings. The second is the impact to business and insurance interests which rely on objective weather impact data. Agricultural interests/forecasts, so on and so on. Business interests pay big dollars for forecasting, including six to eight month prognostications - in particular commodity brokers have great interest in weather data, so the immediacy of weather data is paramount in making or losing money. You can see how the bill would impact private forecasting. There are also implications for future intrusion by privatizing the NWS leaving the government with just the military meteorologists and information which by it's very nature, is secret. 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. 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. Later, Tom |
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. Fair Skies- Doug King |
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. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 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. 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. Here's the best predictor for up to 48 hours out: https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...336/21/0-0-1/2 And here's the one for your region: https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...112/21/0-0-1/0 |
Go to this link:
https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...112/21/0-0-1/0 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" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 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. 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" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Go to this link: https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...112/21/0-0-1/0 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. |
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Go to this link: https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...112/21/0-0-1/0 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. |
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 14:27:48 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Go to this link: https://www.navo.navy.mil/cgi-bin/gr...112/21/0-0-1/0 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!) |
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. |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Harry.Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: 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. 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 A far better program without the spyware is Weather Pulse http://tropicdesigns.net/weatherpulse.php Give it a go and see if you agree. |
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 |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:23:55 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"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? Why, I'm glad you asked - me. :) After years of experience with the different areas that I travel in, I can look at the data and pretty much tell if I'm going to have a good time or a bad time of it. Later, Tom |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:23:55 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:52 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message . 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? Why, I'm glad you asked - me. :) After years of experience with the different areas that I travel in, I can look at the data and pretty much tell if I'm going to have a good time or a bad time of it. Later, Tom There is an exhaust stack (steam from a processing mill) near the entrance to the Huron River (from Lake Erie) that obviously shows the direction (and severity if you know how to read the angle of the exhaust) of the wind. The steam plume can be seen in all directions for at least 15 miles on a clear day. It always gave me a reading of the direction and intensity of the wind (waves) without even having to leave our dock at it is within a mile of the marina, or if we were in a protected area of the Lake within range of the stack plume. I would rather base my judgment of the conditions of the Lake on my observations, including the stake plume, rather than some NOAA report. My past experience with NOAA and their wave height reports has been fairly negative. |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:25:19 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
My past experience with NOAA and their wave height reports has been fairly negative. Interesting. Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com