I've used weather.gov for years and love the service. Every person I've talked to who complains about the crap coverage by the weather companies in the US that I've shown it to uses it exclusively as well. It's a perfect example of the governments lack of profit motive producing a genuinely better product than the competition. I know this isn't always the case but it certainly is here.
I don't agree with lots of things our government spends money on but stuff like this I absolutely support.
Same. A lot of weather sites just pull the free NWS data and wrap it in ads.
Some use higher-resolution grids or better models (check http://forecastadvisor.com/ for your area), but they're almost always at least based on the free NWS data. Also, only weather.gov lets you click around on a map to get their model results for any square on the grid, not just towns and cities.
What is wrong with these people?!
EDIT: Weird. "Its satellite data division would lose $513 million, or 22 percent, of its current funding under the proposal... National Weather Service would be fortunate by comparison, facing only 5 percent cuts." I doubt slashing the satellite budget would improve forecasts, which tend to rely upon data.
I started using windytv.com after seeing it mentioned here. It uses the European ECMWF weather model, which is well known in the meteorological community to be more accurate than the NOAA GFS: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/06/us-numerical-weather-p.... With this budget cut, it looks like that will continue.
In particular, as a non-hydrostatic model, the ECMWF gives much better forecasts in mountainous regions like the Eastern Sierra (where I live).
> senator wanted to stop them from posting weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies.
I wish more voters knew and understood this. Amazing public services have been constantly under attack long before trump so particular rich people can get richer.
The NWS regional twitter accounts are also a great source and many will even talk and answer questions. The Portland team is really on their game, especially that last ice/snow storm we had.
NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age.
NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers can.
So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see which way the wind is blowing.
> The biggest single cut proposed by the passback document comes from NOAA’s satellite division, .... Researchers there were behind a study suggesting that there has been no recent slowdown in the rate of climate change — research that drew the ire of Republicans in Congress.
I live in Boulder and drive past the NOAA (and NIST, and I think parts of CIRES) offices every day. I've had family and countless professors that have done joint research with them, and very, very good friends and colleagues that have started their careers there. Part of how I wound up here (in the tech sector, posting to HN) was on an eighth grade field trip there asking how they drove 'Science on a Sphere' (7 RHEL machines).
It'd obviously be terrible globally if this were to go through, but it'd be pretty awful locally too. Every year around budget approval season, most NOAA folks I know would be insanely worried...Guess that comes a little early this year.
EDIT:
I guess as a follow up, I anticipate pretty substantial(proposed, at least) cuts to UCAR/NCAR and NREL as well. "We don't need no stinkin' climate research!"
Cutting their satellite programs would be a loss for the whole world: some years ago we[1] used it to find gas flares in Nigeria and estimate their environmental damage and the amount of energy wasted by flaring it instead of power generation for the population of the Niger Delta:
While processing their raw data I got a small discrepancy and they very kindly replied my questions with the exact formulas and constants they used: the cause was that they used the density of methane at 20°C instead of 25°C as I had done.
Getting that kind of data from similar agencies in other countries, even Western European ones, is immensely more difficult even when it exists.
The cuts are gonna kill a ton of jobs. Blue collar ones too. And some of the US competitive advantage.
Science has been driving our economy for years.
They are also proposing cutting funding for clean water in the Great Lakes region 97%. Largest source of fresh water in the world and we are gonna cut almost all of the funding?
They've also announced eliminating the budget to control Asian carp... billions and billions in economic activity are going to be lost, not to mention so much biological diversity in the Great Lakes. Just an absolute catastrophe.
It's easy. This administration and the current GOP are beholden to the very rich and to corporations.
Energy companies have made a business decision to use marketing and PR to deny climate change. Denying climate change protects energy companies' profits.
This is all very expected once you realize who funds the GOP.
I don't really get why most media stories on climate change don't explain the motivations behind climate change denial.
Those of use who care about these things are a bit screwed, in that the mid-terms put so many more Democratic seats in play than Republican.
And the Republican majority knows it owes a significant part of its current position to Trump -- and his acive base.
Nonetheless, if you don't want science and reason and at least a best-effort at environmental and resource management to go out the window, NOW is the time to communicate this to your representatives. Whatever your political affiliation as well as that of your representatives.
There are reasonable differences on how to manage as well as measure and report resources and the environment. Most rational people, regardless of their position, don't want to throw the science and scientific endeavors out the window.
And as for "conservative" and "business" value in this: I believe agri-business -- at whatever scale -- derives significant value from the likes of NOAA surveying, evaluating, and reporting on weather and climate.
Something I find annoying about these... "government-science-divestment" attitudes and agendas. These programs don't nor even primarily support "tree huggers". They've grown up, exist, and maintain support because the provide significant value to business and commerce.
I had heard that Trump/Republican the plan to kill NASA's climate research, was actually going to be to shunt it over to NOAA. This might be the other shoe dropping - defund NOAA (especially the satellite division) so that they can't keep the climate research going.
Makes sense when the powers that be think climate change is made up, in fact maybe they think the climate is made up. Why fund an agency that spends money on something that does not exist?
Certainly they believe that weather exists? Cuts to NOAA won't just affect climate change research but will affect weather forecasts, hurricane forecasts, severe weather forecasts, etc.
Someday perhaps we can return to those wonderful bygone era when we had no weather satellites and no one knew the hurricane was coming and thousands of people die and billions of dollars is lost. But the important thing is we bought more carriers.
The White House is desperately trying to crack down on leaks: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/03/03/us/politics/03reu..., to the point of demanding aides hand over their phone to check that Signal is not installed. It's entirely possible the Post and/or whoever leaked the memo is suspicious of custom "fingerprinted" versions that could be traced back to the source.
Because it could endanger their source. Sometimes different versions of a document are given to different people to try to figure out who's leaking. And having people in the White House who are willing to leak important information to the public is in the public interest.
I live in Dixie Alley [0], a place prone to incredibly violent tornadoes. The National Weather Service, part on NOAA, has saved many lives here. If you follow along on a weather enthusiast forum like TalkWeather [1], you'll see just some of the protection that NWS provides us. The prediction and modeling alone are amazing. The thought of not having those people looking out for me is terrifying.
Every single commercial airline flight in the US relies on NOAA forecasting. Without reliable forecasting I would suspect the airline industry would crumble under delays, wasted fuel, diversions, and overall customer dissatisfaction.
This isn't to say a third party couldn't pick up the slack but then you have a very clear conflict of interest. If the airlines get to make their own forecast they can skimp on fuel and push pilots to fly into weather that they magically deem legal. The margins of safety are significantly higher with an unbiased third party.
I was talking to someone who worked as an engineer for NASA for decades. He said the work he was proudest of was on the GOES satellites, because they save lives every year by providing data on extreme weather. It looks like weather satellite operations are going to be hardest hit by these cuts.
If you read the article you will see it involves cuts to measurement areas like satellites and temperature monitoring, which will make weather and climate science shittier for everyone.
Imagine the free market purists get their way -- all funds are cut for NOAA and weather prediction is now left to private industry to provide as a service.
It is an article of faith among many that the free market always produces a better, even optimal, solution. That may be true, but what it is optimizing is profit, which is not a direct measure of the accuracy of the service.
For certain market segments, such as farming, there is probably a pretty strong alignment. But what about for, say, answering questions about whether climate change is real? Will we see a market for conservative-aligned weather information providers which delivers the product which the right wants to see? Likewise, will there be markets to provide what the left wants to see? I have a hard time seeing how that is an improvement over what we currently have.
[+] [-] acomjean|9 years ago|reply
No ads, no hyperbole.
I found out about it when some senator wanted to stop them from posting weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies.
A couple times I've seen that tv news weather leaves the site up on their monitors during newscasts.
[+] [-] icehawk219|9 years ago|reply
I don't agree with lots of things our government spends money on but stuff like this I absolutely support.
[+] [-] username223|9 years ago|reply
Some use higher-resolution grids or better models (check http://forecastadvisor.com/ for your area), but they're almost always at least based on the free NWS data. Also, only weather.gov lets you click around on a map to get their model results for any square on the grid, not just towns and cities.
What is wrong with these people?!
EDIT: Weird. "Its satellite data division would lose $513 million, or 22 percent, of its current funding under the proposal... National Weather Service would be fortunate by comparison, facing only 5 percent cuts." I doubt slashing the satellite budget would improve forecasts, which tend to rely upon data.
[+] [-] nether|9 years ago|reply
In particular, as a non-hydrostatic model, the ECMWF gives much better forecasts in mountainous regions like the Eastern Sierra (where I live).
[+] [-] bitshiffed|9 years ago|reply
Almost all of these companies simply regurgitate NWS information pretending it's their own anyway.
Forecasts are fuzzy enough that they may play in that area; but serious things like severe weather warnings only come from the NWS.
[+] [-] wnevets|9 years ago|reply
I wish more voters knew and understood this. Amazing public services have been constantly under attack long before trump so particular rich people can get richer.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
My guess is that vendors with bigger pockets and a better track record of buying influence (IBM, Monsanto) wants to leverage its own weather property)
[+] [-] dawnerd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|9 years ago|reply
https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=rev&gage=...
https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=fgf&gage=...
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|9 years ago|reply
I have boycotted Accuweather since then.
[+] [-] hota_mazi|9 years ago|reply
Enjoy while it lasts.
[+] [-] krapp|9 years ago|reply
NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age.
NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers can.
So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see which way the wind is blowing.
[+] [-] LnxPrgr3|9 years ago|reply
I bet everyone in Alabama at the time remembers April 27, 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Super_Outbreak
[+] [-] bobmno|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsomctl|9 years ago|reply
Yes, let's shoot the messenger.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackaspen|9 years ago|reply
I live in Boulder and drive past the NOAA (and NIST, and I think parts of CIRES) offices every day. I've had family and countless professors that have done joint research with them, and very, very good friends and colleagues that have started their careers there. Part of how I wound up here (in the tech sector, posting to HN) was on an eighth grade field trip there asking how they drove 'Science on a Sphere' (7 RHEL machines).
It'd obviously be terrible globally if this were to go through, but it'd be pretty awful locally too. Every year around budget approval season, most NOAA folks I know would be insanely worried...Guess that comes a little early this year.
EDIT: I guess as a follow up, I anticipate pretty substantial(proposed, at least) cuts to UCAR/NCAR and NREL as well. "We don't need no stinkin' climate research!"
[+] [-] AlbertoGP|9 years ago|reply
http://gasflaretracker.ng/
[1] I built the application working as freelancer for http://www.stakeholderdemocracy.org/
While processing their raw data I got a small discrepancy and they very kindly replied my questions with the exact formulas and constants they used: the cause was that they used the density of methane at 20°C instead of 25°C as I had done.
Getting that kind of data from similar agencies in other countries, even Western European ones, is immensely more difficult even when it exists.
[+] [-] brohoolio|9 years ago|reply
Science has been driving our economy for years.
They are also proposing cutting funding for clean water in the Great Lakes region 97%. Largest source of fresh water in the world and we are gonna cut almost all of the funding?
[+] [-] mikeyouse|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanstegic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pauloday|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhneu|9 years ago|reply
Energy companies have made a business decision to use marketing and PR to deny climate change. Denying climate change protects energy companies' profits.
This is all very expected once you realize who funds the GOP.
I don't really get why most media stories on climate change don't explain the motivations behind climate change denial.
[+] [-] zouhair|9 years ago|reply
Let's hope he stops at just destroying the US alone and not start a World War.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|9 years ago|reply
And the Republican majority knows it owes a significant part of its current position to Trump -- and his acive base.
Nonetheless, if you don't want science and reason and at least a best-effort at environmental and resource management to go out the window, NOW is the time to communicate this to your representatives. Whatever your political affiliation as well as that of your representatives.
There are reasonable differences on how to manage as well as measure and report resources and the environment. Most rational people, regardless of their position, don't want to throw the science and scientific endeavors out the window.
And as for "conservative" and "business" value in this: I believe agri-business -- at whatever scale -- derives significant value from the likes of NOAA surveying, evaluating, and reporting on weather and climate.
Something I find annoying about these... "government-science-divestment" attitudes and agendas. These programs don't nor even primarily support "tree huggers". They've grown up, exist, and maintain support because the provide significant value to business and commerce.
[+] [-] chasing|9 years ago|reply
Maybe in the Senate, but not in the House! Get out there and find some Democrats in tight districts to support!
[+] [-] dflock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wiggyslim|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metaobject|9 years ago|reply
Mr. Trump is a pathetic excuse for a president.
[+] [-] jacquesm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danh1979|9 years ago|reply
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/explorations.html
[+] [-] jankotek|9 years ago|reply
https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oc...
[+] [-] coldcode|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gargoyle|9 years ago|reply
Why not share that memo with the public since they have it? How is the public interest served by not sharing it?
[+] [-] Analemma_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memmcgee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rabidrat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peckrob|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Alley
[1] http://talkweather.com/index.php
[+] [-] bronco21016|9 years ago|reply
This isn't to say a third party couldn't pick up the slack but then you have a very clear conflict of interest. If the airlines get to make their own forecast they can skimp on fuel and push pilots to fly into weather that they magically deem legal. The margins of safety are significantly higher with an unbiased third party.
[+] [-] Analemma_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GabrielF00|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crftr|9 years ago|reply
Though if we want to talk numbers, here's one: $18.7 billion. NOAA legal assisted DoJ (and others) with BP's Deepwater Horizon civil settlement.[2]
[1] http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about [2] http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/agreement-p...
[+] [-] deelowe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 65827|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BrailleHunting|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intrasight|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tasty_freeze|9 years ago|reply
It is an article of faith among many that the free market always produces a better, even optimal, solution. That may be true, but what it is optimizing is profit, which is not a direct measure of the accuracy of the service.
For certain market segments, such as farming, there is probably a pretty strong alignment. But what about for, say, answering questions about whether climate change is real? Will we see a market for conservative-aligned weather information providers which delivers the product which the right wants to see? Likewise, will there be markets to provide what the left wants to see? I have a hard time seeing how that is an improvement over what we currently have.
[+] [-] mordae|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owly|9 years ago|reply