Proposed Policy "Fairweather"

[DROliver]

We have been working on a weather script to provide weather from NOAA on our sites.During this time I have spoken to many programmers and IT people regarding their infrastructure.What an impressive setup and the complexity is overwhelming.

Every turn we took we found the support that was needed,but we had to follow a "fair weather"rule in how we used their data and in what manner.Although it is not policy, we adopted it as our own we took their recommendations very seriously.

The concern is the amount of resources that is used by the 3 sectors (Public,Academia and Private)They had never visioned the number of other resources that would be integrated into their network.This has put a strain on the NOAA backbone and changes are coming.

One concern is satellite looping and the amount of resources and Bandwidth they consume.Quote"Hurricane tracking is huge and fun hobby,however the amount of hits we take is 10000 to 1 when a storm is approaching Landfall.We can not afford to take many more hard resource days as we might not be able to meet demands and no information gets out in REAL TIME!)"

Here is a quote from this article:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
Refer to top article.

The NRC study recognized advances in science and technology are driving the evolution of the weather and climate enterprise, and the rapid changes in science and technology underlying weather and climate forecasting are likely to continue. Therefore, the study's primary conclusion was

it is counterproductive and diversionary to establish detailed and rigid boundaries for each sector outlining who can do what and with which tools. Instead, efforts should focus on improving the processes by which the public and private providers of weather services interact. Improving these processes would also help alleviate the misunderstanding and suspicion that exists between some members of the sectors." [Emphasis in original]
With this as background, the NRC's first recommendation was:

Recommendation 1. The NWS should replace its 1991 public-private partnership policy with a policy that defines processes for making decisions on products, technologies, and services, rather than rigidly defining the roles of the NWS and the private sector.

What does it mean?

From talks over the last 4 months,it looks like they want more control of who ,what and where their data will be used.

Example is Satellite looping.It could be a thing of the past as we know it!!

Peace

Dr.Oliver

[Hurricanehink]

I voted no, because I enjoy seeing the satellite loops and tracking storms. I am actually the opposite of most people: When a hurricane will hit landfall, I would watch the TV for an update. Maybe during peak times, there should be a limit, like maybe a membership, but I don't think satellite looping should be taken away from the average Internet Hurricane Tracker.

[mf_dolphin]

I voted no but I understand the issue with bandwidth. I'm sure they could offload the loops on "mirror" servers during peak times. People have done that with games and other downloads for years on the internet. They need to look at how the private sector handles these types of situations instead of reinventing the wheel....

[george_r_1961]

I hope it doesnt come to the public not having access to loops; mirror servers are a good idea. The only problem with that is servers cost money to run and someone has to pay for them...right?

[Rainband]

I voted no. I think it wouldn't be fair to limit access to satellites our tax money pays for

[george_r_1961]

Rainband I agree...but if it boils down to the general public having access....or government officials needing access to make predictions and save lives...Well you know the way it will have to be. Hopefully it wont come to that though.

[ColdFront77]

Hopefully those of us interested in meteorology, in this case tropical meteorology have access to satellites/satellite loops. It isn't like the vast amount of internet users want to access these websites.

Many websites can withstand heavy amounts of traffic; which will only slow down access to these sites a little.

[Stormsfury]

I didn't vote ... and here's why ...

I'm torn on both sides ...

I think a free registration should be required (or some kind of registration) for access to the datasets such as what the NOGAPS site (FNMOC) currently does ...

In favor of the free access, I can access those graphics (and yes, there are plenty of mirror sites available that have that ability to convert the graphical maps through WXP, NWP, etc...

But at the same time, I tend to lean also towards yes, since the model data can also be easily misinterpreted by many when a graphical depiction indicates one thing, but not understanding the overall pattern would lead the "seasoned" forecaster to make a different assessment through pattern recognition.

So I have to either say, undecided ... or unsure ...

SF

[FLwxGuy]

i voted no --- if NOAA were to limit data access to the public, it would put a HUGE strain on the private meteorology sector which is dependent on that data. take it away and the private sector is in serious trouble.

[Guest]

I voted no which FLWxGuy gives a good reason for as well as someothers here such as my tax dollars. Yes i pay for them and i wanna be able to see my money at work. I see this same issue brought up every year and well my opinion stays the same on this as well

[cycloneye]

This spells trouble for the private sector as they are very depentant from what noaa has in their sat loops and I dont concieve that happening because it wont be the same thing tracking hurricanes but I hope that they wont do that.

[wxman57]

i voted no --- if NOAA were to limit data access to the public, it would put a HUGE strain on the private meteorology sector which is dependent on that data. take it away and the private sector is in serious trouble.

I'm not sure how you think it would impact the private sector (like my company). We have our own satellite receiving stations - we don't go to the NOAA web servers for the imagery.

[Rainband]

i voted no --- if NOAA were to limit data access to the public, it would put a HUGE strain on the private meteorology sector which is dependent on that data. take it away and the private sector is in serious trouble.

I'm not sure how you think it would impact the private sector (like my company). We have our own satellite receiving stations - we don't go to the NOAA web servers for the imagery.

I thought all the weather satellites were NOAA satellites

[mf_dolphin]

Johnathan, wxman57 is saying they receive the information directly from the NOAA satellites so they don't put a strain on the resources of NOAA...

[Rainband]

Johnathan, wxman57 is saying they receive the information directly from the NOAA satellites so they don't put a strain on the resources of NOAA...

Ok now i really feel stupid

[Derek Ortt]

Like the idea completely.

If this is implemented, the data will then be interpreted and not be subject to misinterpretation, which does go on from time to time. Also, the big issue is the NRL site which is currently used operationally for the microwave data. I know for a certainty that official functions have been affected by useless traffic on the NRL site. A curtailing of the data would ensure that the data is no longer mis-intrepreted and that operational access is guaranteed

[MWatkins]

If this is implemented, the data will then be interpreted and not be subject to misinterpretation, which does go on from time to time. Also, the big issue is the NRL site which is currently used operationally for the microwave data. I know for a certainty that official functions have been affected by useless traffic on the NRL site.

A curtailing of the data would ensure that the data is no longer mis-intrepreted and that operational access is guaranteed

Making sweeping statements like this one..."don't share the data because it could be misintrepreted" are extreemly dangerous. It's a direct extension of the argument that people are too dumb to vote...those who know better should decide for the people. See where this line of thinking goes?

Sounds to me that the NRL should coordinate with TPC so that they have an open channel to data.

Anyway...given the current political climate, when I first read this post, I was quite concerned.

First thing that came to mind was Accuweather. With their insistence that the government should provide them with...oh say free recon flights for example...the NWS may be working to keep their role distinct from the private sector and to better qualify what services will and will not be provided by the gov. For example...does this mean that model data will revert back to data feeds and it's up to the private/academic sectors to develop interfaces to the data (at a cost to the end user)?

My guess is that this is an attempt to better define what the government roles will be (although I wonder what was meant by the suspicion comment...I still find it very odd that Isabel wasn't represented in the GFS model runs for something like 5 days when it was at peak intensity (Cat 5))...remember? But...like most of us...I am extremely concerned about the possible implications.

Looking at this bullet point in the policy page:

Establishing procedures for seeking input and suggestions to create, modify, or discontinue products and services.

I would strongly recommend that everyone air their comments right away:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/feedback.php

MW

[Rainband]

If this is implemented, the data will then be interpreted and not be subject to misinterpretation, which does go on from time to time. Also, the big issue is the NRL site which is currently used operationally for the microwave data. I know for a certainty that official functions have been affected by useless traffic on the NRL site.

A curtailing of the data would ensure that the data is no longer mis-intrepreted and that operational access is guaranteed

Making sweeping statements like this one..."don't share the data because it could be misintrepreted" are extreemly dangerous. It's a direct extension of the argument that people are too dumb to vote...those who know better should decide for the people. See where this line of thinking goes?

Sounds to me that the NRL should coordinate with TPC so that they have an open channel to data.

Anyway...given the current political climate, when I first read this post, I was quite concerned.

First thing that came to mind was Accuweather. With their insistence that the government should provide them with...oh say free recon flights for example...the NWS may be working to keep their role distinct from the private sector and to better qualify what services will and will not be provided by the gov. For example...does this mean that model data will revert back to data feeds and it's up to the private/academic sectors to develop interfaces to the data (at a cost to the end user)?

My guess is that this is an attempt to better define what the government roles will be (although I wonder what was meant by the suspicion comment...I still find it very odd that Isabel wasn't represented in the GFS model runs for something like 5 days when it was at peak intensity (Cat 5))...remember? But...like most of us...I am extremely concerned about the possible implications.

Looking at this bullet point in the policy page:

Establishing procedures for seeking input and suggestions to create, modify, or discontinue products and services.

I would strongly recommend that everyone air their comments right away:

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/fairweather/feedback.php

MW

Excellent Post!!!! MW BTW I still say my taxes pay for the sats and other weather related equipment. Sorry Derek, but no one has the right to take away or limit the data from those satellites. Useless traffic on NRL. I say learning is very useful.

[ColdFront77]

As I mentioned, it isn't like most of those that use the internet want to access satellite and other tropical weather data... there is good reason for all those here that are interested in meteorology to have access to these websites.

[Rainband]

My two cents to NOAA.......

Being a weather enthusiast for many years, I find the idea of limiting or even prohibiting satellite data to the general public(ie weather enthusiasts) both uncalled for and unfair. My tax money pays for these satellites and the people who monitor them and their data. I also think there are other alternatives such as mirror servers or repeat loops in crucial situations such as landfalling storms or severe weather outbreaks. This would help with bandwidth issues. I think everyone with an interest in weather who chooses to use these satellites has the right. It would be a big blow to the weather enthusiasts and Skywarn community to prohibit us from this data. I belong to a weather enthusiasts web site Storm2k.org and we hope that these satellites and there data will always be available to us. Thanks for your time.