Amount of info available to public

[Derek Ortt]

I have been thinking about this for a long time and have come to the conclusion that too much info is being amde available to the general public. Here are some of my reasons for coming to this conclusion

1. The excessive traffic can interfere with official operations. This is most true with the NRL site. During Isidore and Lili, there were some delays in accessing the NRL site for HRD briefings. In addition, even us at RSMAS were having major problems accessing the SSD satellite images. Once scientific and official usage becomes interfered with in any manner, then prehaps it is time to restrict access somewhat.

2. The vast majority of the general public does not know how to interpret the data. They could not tell an organizing system vs a weakening system on satellite imagery, nor could they interpret the model data. In fact, they may act based upon info given by a single model run.

3. The NHC discussions will only confuse the general public. Especially when they start talking about different scenarios (I know this is a popular prodct with enthusiasts, which is why I make the NWHHC discussions available to the general public). I have seen from the log files from the NWHHC that the general public does not seem to go for the forecast discussions anyways (the updates are much more popular), so this may be a mute point.

I'd like to hear some comments from everyone on this issue. Feel free to disagree, but please explain why you do/don't agree

[ColdFront77]

Derek, do what your think is best. I don't think it is up to me.

I will probably agree and disagree with those that follow me.

Sorry, not sure what else to say at this time. Thanks.

[weatherlover427]

I agree with you, and here is why.

1) I myself like to look at all aspects of the NHC site during the tropical season. This includes the 6 hour per day short updates, the in-depth updates, and the monthly summaries.

2) If I was not as knowledgeable about weather as I am, I would likely still read all the above mentioned pages because I would be interested in learning more information about the weather.

3) During the tropical season, it is imperative that you read and know as much information as possible about what is going on over the open waters because you need to be as aware as possible of the happenings in all corners of the oceans.

[cycloneye]

Yes Derek it is more easy for the public to see the updates in a way that everyone understands what is on them and not put terminologys that people dont understsnd and that is what we are doing here at the storm2k forecast team.We make those updates as simple as possible for the members to understsnd all of it and it dont has to be a long update but a relative short one but that goes to the medular of a system that is out there and inform what is going on with it and what will happen in the future.

[Steve]

There are server delays and interruptions, and that is a bad thing. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with you more. Who pays for these governmental entities? That's right, we the taxpayers. It's not about an oligarchial heirarchy of government employees becase we don't live in a dictatorship. Someone's paying their salaries, for the satellites, all the computers and servers, and everything else. You, yourself have said many times that there is plenty we already don't see that is reserved for the meteorological community and university people such as yourself. There is enough money out there to dedicate reserved access to data in heavy-traffic times.

But when you view the discussion in the context that this is America, a free-market country, then too much weather information can never be a bad thing. Most of the people who aggressively seek out the information already have some experience or are trying to learn about tropical systems and processes. By limiting information, people would be steered toward so-called 'official' information. I couldn't tell you how many times the NHC and/or any model of your choosing was WAY OFF. Look no further than the 2002 season for all the evidence you need.

If the TPC restricted information, people would turn against them. Any errors they made would be magnified and turn the general public toward individual-minded tv weather forecasters, fee-based internet services and what have you. It's even possible that trust in our then 'official' sources would wane to the point that people would seek out alternatives on the web and end up running across forecasts from guys like Great One.

And consider the realities of today. We're way beyond the information age and into a hyper-information age. A cable modem linked to Google.com can return copious amounts of data to anyone. As is always the case, some people will use gathered information responsibly. Others will not. Some will agree. Others will not. Some will expose B.S. when they see it. Others won't. That's just the way it is. If the NHC/TPC starts talking about a storm moving WNW to cover their butts overall yet 3 recon fixes move a storm 7/10ths of a degree west without any nudge north, we're going to be able to see through that and adjust our own interpretations. The smart people will rely on official information, but they will also take it with a grain of salt - as it should be. We all have eyes. We all have ears. And most of us have been watching tropical systems on the news (rather intently if we're this into tropical weather) since we could barely talk. And while the 'experts' may have a better handle overall on what might be taking place, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to be right in the end.

Great topic btw.

Steve

[OtherHD]

Well, I strongly disagree, cause the "average person" probably won't check what the NHC says, and even more-so won't give a flip what the models say. Instead, I'm sure they'll listen to the local news station, where they can have the info spoon-fed to them.

And what of the people who DO understand satellite imagery and discussions? Leave them to rely on TWC (God forbid) and their local news?

[ColdFront77]

Too bad I can't be has verbose with my answer. At times I can and do, other times I don't. * Sigh * I am very sorry.

[ColdFront77]

1. The excessive traffic can interfere with official operations. This is most true with the NRL site. During Isidore and Lili, there were some delays in accessing the NRL site for HRD briefings. In addition, even us at RSMAS were having major problems accessing the SSD satellite images. Once scientific and official usage becomes interfered with in any manner, then prehaps it is time to restrict access somewhat.

Those that really want to see the activity could easily be left out.


2. The vast majority of the general public does not know how to interpret the data. They could not tell an organizing system vs a weakening system on satellite imagery, nor could they interpret the model data. In fact, they may act based upon info given by a single model run.

Right, the general public for the most part does not know how to interpret the data, but most, if not all weather enthusiasts do. Those that aren't that interested do not bother monitoring weather information. However, when it being as "exciting" as a hurricane, a lot more people become interested and monitor the situation carefully.


3. The NHC discussions will only confuse the general public. Especially when they start talking about different scenarios (I know this is a popular prodct with enthusiasts, which is why I make the NWHHC discussions available to the general public). I have seen from the log files from the NWHHC that the general public does not seem to go for the forecast discussions anyways (the updates are much more popular), so this may be a mute point.

The National Hurricane Center discussions have been issued for years, I wouldn't think they should stop issuing them... they have to get something out to the public to let residents and visitors to threatened locations know what is expected at each current time.


I made an effort like the rest of you. It may sound odd... but what I said may not even be what I meant. Thanks.

[Rainband]

There are server delays and interruptions, and that is a bad thing. But otherwise, I couldn't disagree with you more. Who pays for these governmental entities? That's right, we the taxpayers. It's not about an oligarchial heirarchy of government employees becase we don't live in a dictatorship. Someone's paying their salaries, for the satellites, all the computers and servers, and everything else. You, yourself have said many times that there is plenty we already don't see that is reserved for the meteorological community and university people such as yourself. There is enough money out there to dedicate reserved access to data in heavy-traffic times.

But when you view the discussion in the context that this is America, a free-market country, then too much weather information can never be a bad thing. Most of the people who aggressively seek out the information already have some experience or are trying to learn about tropical systems and processes. By limiting information, people would be steered toward so-called 'official' information. I couldn't tell you how many times the NHC and/or any model of your choosing was WAY OFF. Look no further than the 2002 season for all the evidence you need.

If the TPC restricted information, people would turn against them. Any errors they made would be magnified and turn the general public toward individual-minded tv weather forecasters, fee-based internet services and what have you. It's even possible that trust in our then 'official' sources would wane to the point that people would seek out alternatives on the web and end up running across forecasts from guys like Great One.

And consider the realities of today. We're way beyond the information age and into a hyper-information age. A cable modem linked to Google.com can return copious amounts of data to anyone. As is always the case, some people will use gathered information responsibly. Others will not. Some will agree. Others will not. Some will expose B.S. when they see it. Others won't. That's just the way it is. If the NHC/TPC starts talking about a storm moving WNW to cover their butts overall yet 3 recon fixes move a storm 7/10ths of a degree west without any nudge north, we're going to be able to see through that and adjust our own interpretations. The smart people will rely on official information, but they will also take it with a grain of salt - as it should be. We all have eyes. We all have ears. And most of us have been watching tropical systems on the news (rather intently if we're this into tropical weather) since we could barely talk. And while the 'experts' may have a better handle overall on what might be taking place, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to be right in the end.

Great topic btw.

Steve

I agree with you and TOM..Those that aren't interested..won't be trying to get information and it's anyones right as a taxpayer to access the information!!

[mf_dolphin]

I have been thinking about this for a long time and have come to the conclusion that too much info is being amde available to the general public. Here are some of my reasons for coming to this conclusion

1. The excessive traffic can interfere with official operations. This is most true with the NRL site. During Isidore and Lili, there were some delays in accessing the NRL site for HRD briefings. In addition, even us at RSMAS were having major problems accessing the SSD satellite images. Once scientific and official usage becomes interfered with in any manner, then prehaps it is time to restrict access somewhat.

This issue could be easily handled with "public" and "private" sources. As an datacenter manager for an internet based software company this is not as complicated or expensive as people think.

2. The vast majority of the general public does not know how to interpret the data. They could not tell an organizing system vs a weakening system on satellite imagery, nor could they interpret the model data. In fact, they may act based upon info given by a single model run.

It's not the vast majority of the public that accesses these services. It's the weather enthusiasts and those who are threatened that do. You make an assumption that people act on a single model run without any back-up. Not very scientific assumption there. Sounds to me like you're trying to make your point with an unsupported assumption.

3. The NHC discussions will only confuse the general public. Especially when they start talking about different scenarios (I know this is a popular prodct with enthusiasts, which is why I make the NWHHC discussions available to the general public). I have seen from the log files from the NWHHC that the general public does not seem to go for the forecast discussions anyways (the updates are much more popular), so this may be a mute point.

[b] I couldn't disagree more. The discussions are much more interesting to me that the updates. That is where we get an insight on the thought processes behind the updates.

A great thread Derek, I just happen to disagree with your conclusions. When the taxpayers foot the bill we have the right to the information as long as it's not "National Security" stuff.

[ColdFront77]

Great post, Marshall. The bottom line is, we need access to tropical weather sites as weather enthusiasts.

Having specific data for the "private sector" and the "public sector" makes a lot of sense. There are some people that are interested in the tropics only when their is a tropical cyclone very close to the Caribbean, Mexico and/or United States when the having two different servers is actually needed.

[vbhoutex]

Great topic Derek!!

I'm going to try not to repeat what has already been said. The basics of it are that the public is due the right to use the information as they see fit. WE do pay for it!
As far as the public misinterpreting the discussions. I doubt it. Most of the general public do not even know that the discussions and for that matter other updates even exist. As OHD says they use the TV. They are not in weather chat rooms or on tropical discussion boards or even looking at the modes, if they have any idea what they are or if they exist.
As Marshall says it is a very simple matter to make sure that the governmental agencies have free and easy access while the rest of us do also. I would hope that these agencies are not relying only on public access sites like NRL or Ramsdis for their information. If they are, they shouldn't be if this information is critical to the decisions and forecasts they make, IMO. To me that is foolish and dangerous. They should be set up like Marshall says so they always have free and clear access. It would not matter if I didn't get the info as quickly as I like to, but I should not be restricted from it either if it is public domain.
I am not saying the following in a cutting manner at all as I respect you and your weather expertise as I have told you before, but the view(s) I see you expressing here and in some other threads earlier seem almost to come from a simplistic or childish point of view-not looking at the whole picture may be a better way to say it. It is almost as if you think that unless someone is an expert and can't use the information available to come out with the "best or perfect" forecast or understand everything in it totally then they should not have access to it. That scenario of restricted availability would keep others, like me, or like a 16 year old weather freak who could end up as the best NHC director we've ever had if given the opportunity to learn, from learning the things we need or want to learn to further our understanding of the weather and how it operates. What piqued your interest in the weather? How did you begin to learn about the weather? Think about that.

[Derek Ortt]

RAMSDIS actually does provide a seperate service to HRD and probably NHC as well. HRD has their own RMASDIS machine, which provides them with much of the data at a touch of a button. As for NRL, that is used and I am not sure of any other place to get some of the data, especially the SSMI and TMI data that is useful to forecasting. Remote Sensing Sytems has great research SSMI and TMI data, which I have used quite a bit of.

I have thought long about the imagery, and it is the problems for those in the field accessing that has caused me the greatest concern. If the problems are fixed regarding access, my main point of contention no longer flies. Regarding the other issues, the public does seem to know about the online products, as more than 34 million people visited the NHC site on the day of Lili's landfall. NWHHC had more than 3K the day before and was unbelievably busy before 7 a.m. the day of landfall, but once power went out in Louisiana, the hits immediately dropped by almost 95 percent (actualy number of NWHHC users is unknown as the NWHHC rpoducts were copied and pasted around the internet). It is highly unlikely that only enthusiasts were ones visiting the sites. This is what somewhat concerns me. Not everyone will have the knowledge that the enthusiasts do, and people can be prone to bad decision making when facing a hurricane. I can say that from experience with Hurricane Michelle, when I left Coral Gables early in case, bought canned goods, but did not bring a can opener. I merely overlooked it, and the same can come from satellite imagery as well. What I'd almost perfer for those learning is to learn initially the way that I did. That is listen to the experts on channels like TWC. This requires much of your time (my entire summer vacations were spent watching TWC so I could learn more about TC's). After a few years, try to issue some "in-house" products. Take this learned knowledge to college and you'll be surprised how this can open a lot of doors (just speaking based upon experience as I quickly was offered and took a position in research at RSMAS)

I understand completely the other side of the debate. I used to be on that side, always wanting the same data that NHC has.

[Southernmost Weather]

I can understand both sides of this issue. However, in this information age, my thinking is more is better. I tend to think the folks who access this information at NHC and elsewhere are the ones who are primarily going to be affected by these storms. I also think that the average person who is in the path of these storms from year to year has enough knowledge to understand (although maybe not completely in technical terms) what they are seeing. That comes from experiencing these storms. Let's give the public a little more credit than perhaps they deserve (at least those who are prone to these tropical disturbances).