Pro Santorum Bill wrote:Weather service needs to get back on track
By Michael Smith
Special to the Star-Telegram
"Taxpayers pay for collection of the weather data and shouldn't have to go through a private provider to make use of it," said a May 4 Star-Telegram editorial.
I agree.
That is why the public should support a bill by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., to force the National Weather Service for the first time to immediately release 100 percent of its data. The NWS does not release all of its data now, and the agency takes the position that it does not have to do so.
The non-release of data is just one of many problems with today's National Weather Service.
While 2004's Hurricane Charley was "unexpectedly" strengthening to a Category 4 storm within two hours of striking the Florida coast, one of the National Weather Service's most important hurricane data collection aircraft was in Mexico doing an air pollution study.
Worse, the NWS withheld data from another hurricane hunter aircraft for 34 minutes that would have revealed the rapid intensification while it organized a news conference for itself!
The Tsunami Warning Center was unmanned when the earthquake that triggered the Indian Ocean tsunami occurred. At least two of the center's six tsunami detection buoys were out of service, leaving the United States and Canada vulnerable.
The National Weather Service's cooperative observer network, which the NWS says is vital to the climate change issue, has deteriorated to the point that we don't know if the higher temperatures it registers are due to global warming or air conditioners blowing warm air on thermometers in faulty placements!
Congress heard testimony last month that NWS does not have enough money to produce tornado warnings.
Yet with all of these problems in performing its essential mission, the NWS recently changed a successful 50-year old policy and has begun to produce products not intended for use by the public that directly compete with the commercial weather industry.
Santorum's bill would:
• Focus the National Weather Service on its mission of warning of tornadoes and other weather hazards.
• Require the NWS to produce essential ("core") forecasts for the public and essential aviation and marine forecasts.
• Ensure that the NWS produces accurate data.
• Force the NWS to release in real time 100 percent of its data, forecasts and storm warnings to all.
Yes, this includes sending the data through the portals mentioned in the Star-Telegram's editorial, "and by such other mechanisms as the Secretary of Commerce [the parent agency of the NWS] considers appropriate," such as Web pages, NOAA Weather Radio, etc.
The private sector will continue to produce products needed by specialized users of weather information and technology.
The critics comparing NWS vs. weather industry to FedEx vs. the U.S. Postal Service apparently want the NWS to start charging for its forecasts.
FedEx could never compete if the Postal Service delivered packages free.
We don't want the NWS to charge the public. We want a level playing field in which private-sector companies compete with one another and the NWS performs its essential mission, free of charge, to the public.
These goals are in the national interest and worthy of support.
Michael Smith is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, a certified consulting meteorologist and the CEO/founder of WeatherData Inc. of Wichita, Kan. http://www.weatherdata.com http://www.stormhawk.com
Anti Bill wrote:Partly foggy on some key components
By Dan Sobein
Special to the Star-Telegram
In his op-ed, "Weather service needs to get back on track," Michael Smith, CEO of WeatherData Inc., shows a misunderstanding of the effect of S. 786 becoming law. There was also confusion on his part about the distribution of weather information to Americans.
Smith alleged:
"While 2004's Hurricane Charley was 'unexpectedly' strengthening ... one of the National Weather Service's most important hurricane data collection aircraft was in Mexico doing an air pollution study."
The NWS does not own aircraft. The primary source for data collection for hurricanes is the Air Force Reserve. The parent agency of the NWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, does own aircraft that are primarily used for research, but also act as a backup to Air Force planes. One of these was located in Mexico doing research. These planes carry a full contingent of staff just in case they are needed on short notice. The other planes were very active helping out the Air Force Reserve.
Smith also states, "[W]orse, the NWS withheld data from another hurricane hunter aircraft for 34 minutes that would have revealed the rapid intensification while it organized a news conference for itself!"
This is simply not what happened. The NWS has never withheld hurricane data. Smith misunderstands the process of how information gets from the planes to the world. After all of the data is accumulated by the plane, it is sent not to the NWS, but to Air Force employees who then quality check it. It is the Air Force, not the NWS, that then distributes this to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the rest of us.
The time of the product is not the time that the product is disseminated; it is the time of the center fix of the storm. There have been some instances when Air Force personnel, while checking the data, saw critical information and let the forecaster at NHC know. Is this what Smith was objecting to? I certainly do not want the forecaster to have to wait for perilous information simply because it is not yet available to a private company.
Smith also stated that this bill would force the NWS to release 100 percent of its data in real time. The NWS already does so. The problem with this bill is that it would force the NWS to release data only to companies like his.
The bill is very specific in its language. "The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service ... that is or could be provided by the private sector …"
Under this bill, the only information that the NWS would be able to directly distribute (other than severe weather information) is products that the private sector is unable or unwilling to produce or products that are required by international treaties. That means no daily forecasts (even forecasts of inclement weather), no radar or satellite images and no observations. The same goes for NOAA Weather Radio and the Emergency Managers Weather Information Network. These systems would no longer be available if this bill were to become law.
Smith drew a correlation to FedEx and UPS, "FedEx could never compete if the Postal Service delivered packages free." This is a very interesting analogy, but just not relevant. You see, FedEx has its own collection and distribution network. FedEx has its own fleet of planes and trucks that will pick up and deliver packages right to your door.
The commercial weather companies do not launch their own weather satellites; nor do they have a system of radars or take routine surface and upper- air observations. No, you and I pay for that with our tax dollars.
Smith's company is taking this data for free and selling it back to people who are willing to pay for it. If he wants to send up a weather satellite and deploy a system of radars and keep it from me because it is proprietary, I have no problem with that. But do not tell Americans that they cannot have the information for which they have already paid.
Dan Sobein is vice president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization. http://www.nwseo.org
Instead of Saddam we should put Santorum in here.
