National Weather Service forecasts to be banned?
It may soon be illegal for the National Weather Service (NWS) to issue non-severe weather forecasts under the provisions of the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, Senate Bill S.786, introduced April 14 by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. The bill's key provision (Section 2b) states that the National Weather Service cannot provide "a product or service...that is or could be provided by the private sector", with the exception of severe weather forecasts and warnings needed to protect life and property. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is given sole authority on how to interpret what NWS products and services should be restricted. In his comments upon introduction of the bill, Senator Santorum said the bill would boost the private weather industry by reducing unfair competition from the NWS and generate cost savings to the government, remarking, "The beauty of a highly competent private sector is that services that are not inherently involved in public safety and security can be carried out with little or no expenditure of taxpayer dollars."
Why The Weather Underground opposes the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005
It is unclear from the bill's language whether the NWS would be allowed to continue making its routine public and marine forecasts. This decision would be made by the Secretary of Commerce. I believe the expertise of the NWS forecasters is unmatched anywhere in the world, and throwing away their forecasts would be a shameful waste. Although the private weather industry can and does provide routine public and marine forecasts, the quality of these forecasts is sometimes poor and would likely worsen if the NWS ceased issuing forecasts. When I participated in forecasting contests both as a student and an instructor, I discovered that while it was difficult--but not impossible--to beat the NWS forecast, it was nearly impossible to beat the "consensus" forecast--that is, the average of everyone's forecast. Private weather industry forecasters do their own forecasting, but will usually check their forecast against what the NWS says before sending it out. If the NWS forecast differs considerably, there will frequently be an adjustment made towards the NWS forecast, resulting in a better "consensus" forecast. So, with the proposed legislation, not only would we lose the best forecasts available, but the forecasts from the private weather companies would also worsen. Many sectors of our economy depend upon good forecasts, and passage of the bill might result in a loss of millions of dollars to the economy. Elimination of routine NWS forecasts would result in little cost savings to the government. The 24-hour staffing at NWS offices required to make severe weather forecasts would not change significantly, and these forecasters would need to be working all the time making forecasts in order to fulfill their duty to make severe weather forecasts. If the NWS has to keep their forecasting staff in place, why not continue to let them make their excellent forecasts? Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy remarked, "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
Not all private industry would benefit
The Weather Underground, Inc. relies heavily on NWS forecasts and products that would likely be eliminated. Without these products, our company would likely be forced to significantly downsize. Other private weather companies are in the same situation, and smaller TV and radio stations that rely on free NWS forecasts would also suffer. And K-12 schools that rely on the ad-free weather.gov web site would be forced to eliminate some weather education offerings.The bill primarily benefits those private weather companies with large staffs of forecasters that can make forecasts for the entire country, such as AccuWeather and the Weather Channel. Legislation like this has been pushed for many years by the Commercial Weather Services Association, led by AccuWeather, a company based in Pennsylvania. CWSA and AccuWeather managed to get almost identical bill introduced in the House in 1999.
Too much power is given to the Secretary of Commerce
The decisions on which NWS services and products unfairly compete with private industry are given to one person, the Secretary of Commerce. Leaving one politically-appointed person in charge of this decision-making is unwise. A more fair solution would be to form a committee to make the decisions.
How to oppose The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005
The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 is currently before the Senate Commerce Committee, and will have to make it out of there before the full Senate votes on it. The time to kill this bill is now! If you're interested, you can sign a petition opposing the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, or write your Senator if he or she is on the Senate Commerce Committee: http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
Thanks
Jack
I've already paid for that information; a private company would need to present it in a much better format for me to want to pay for it.
That all seems totally appropriate. To restrict the NWS so that some private enterprise would be able to charge for that information is not just asking me to pay twice; it's like asking me to pay a toll to use a public road just to inhance the income of the toll booth maker.
How silly!!!
The next issue I have with this proposed bill is the Senator's claim that the NWS should not be allowed duplicate services that can be provided by the private sector. Whose duplicating who? The NWS was around long before any of these private companies came along, so it seems to me they are duplicating services the NWS has been doing for years. And since when should government agencies that have been providing the tax payers with valuable and accurate services for decades have to downsize in order to allow private companies to flurish?
The third problem I have with this bill is anytime a profit driven organization is in charge of providing the general public information that could mean the difference between life and death, people are going to die. The first sign that it isn't profitable to provide a certain type of service, or to provide service in any given area, the company will reduce or eliminate the service. That's just the nature of a profit driven business and this is why privatizing the weather service won't work.
There's nothing wrong with the system the way it is now. Why fix what ain't broke? My guess is the Senator already knows this, but his bank account is probably being padded by these private weather service companies. Hopefully, the people this bill is being presented to are smart enough to realize just how idiotic it is and they throw it out the door along with the Senator!
Grampi problem number 2:The NWS is dupicating services. Read my earlier post. We developed a graphical snowfall map and then the NWS duplicated it. Remember, I was not talking about forecasting. That's not the problem.
Grampi problem number 3: The NWS will still be in charge of life or property threatening weather. They will still be issuing warnings, watches, etc. I suggest you read the bill.
While I am heartened to see people aware of the political process, and how it relates to weather observation and reporting, I have some friendly advice:
Chill out! This hysteria will NOT help the situation.
The legislation sent to the Senate floor by Mr. Santorum will NOT destroy the NWS, but PERHAPS could limit some of its important duties. The NOAA web pages and possibly some other functions led by local WSFOs and specialized branches may be impacted.
There are two major issues with this bill that need to be addressed. One is the obtuse wording; just what is the Senator trying to say? The second is, there are OTHER PRIVATE WEATHER SERVICES besides Accu-Weather, and they need some legal help to sustain themselves. I firmly believe that we need to see more non-NOAA participation in fields such as severe weather and hurricane/tropical forecasting, but the current structure of data flow limits the non-NWS meteorologist in those pursuits.
The bill needs to be rewritten, plain and simple. But do not be fooled by comments saying that NWS or NOAA agencies are far better than their privately run counterparts. There is no proof of such a statement, and someday firms may be able to prove their skills in some of the toughest corners of weather prediction. IF they get the chance.
Best Regards,
Larry Cosgrove
I saw the lowballing personally all the time. Most government contractors are ripoff artists.
If the NWS is duplicating a service that was developed by the private sector, then the bill should only forbid the NWS to duplicate only that service. It shouldn't have all functions except for severe weather services stripped away.
Once again, federal agencies should not be subjected to downsizing and the possibility of thousands of their employees losing their jobs simply to create a greater chance of success for private firms. It's not the inharent duty of civil servants to give up their jobs to create private jobs.
I have on 2 occasions submitted storm reports to the NWS Forecast Office in Upton NY. I use this Site to determine whether to cancel events or keep them scheduled when snow storms are on the way.
Interestingly, I have actually had the experience of watching local weather stations (Hartford and New Haven) sometimes forecast certain conditions, yet when I check with the NWS website for my zone, find a different forecast. This has not happened too much, but it has happened. In addition, the NWS updates if local zone forecasts several times per day but I may only watch TV stations' weather at 5pm or perhaps 11pm.. and they tend to focus on Hartford or New Haven and not always mention my town. I can get this detailed forcast for my town by entering the zip code at the NWS Website.
Can you imagine the chaos that can occur is suddenly a Corporate Forecast calls for snow accumulating between 1 and 3 inches, then all of a sudden the storm intensifies into a blizzard ?? Nice.. real nice.
Seems like Lawsuits for Weather Forecasting Malpractice ??? may run rampant in the future. After all, private companies -- no... better yet.. Monopolies have lots of $$$$.... Remember Microsoft?
I say let the NWS continue to do the fantastic job that they have been doing right along, and continue to improve as they have been.
Good luck NWS... You certainly have my support.
Joe D.
This bill could hurt my business if I could not get accurate weather forecasts, or if I had to pay for the information.
I use WeatherUnderground to view radar and to get temperature and humidity forecasts.
I can modify my concrete mix to fit the weather conditions and give my customers a better quality product which will last longer.
I am not a meteorologist, but weather is very important to me.
Mike
Owner
Mike
Viewing: 201 - 216
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index