Weather Data much safer now

[dhweather]

bye bye Rick Santorum!!!!

KEEP WEATHER DATA FREE !!!!!!!

[hurricanetrack]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOD!

[Coredesat]

Serves him right! Now we don't have to worry about getting our official forecasts from Joe Bastardi.

[JonathanBelles]

i kno im new but i dont get it.

[Jim Cantore]

I've always questioned his sanity, this is a victory for weather geeks everywhere.

[wxman57]

This thread should be moved to the political forum.

[kevin]

We don't have a political forum.

[Andrew92]

i kno im new but i dont get it.

He proposed a bill in 2005 to try to make us pay for our weather information, which of course comes out of our tax dollars. We would get warnings but that is pretty much it, unless we wanted to pay Accuweather or another private sector.

GOOD RIDDANCE SANTORUM!!! Don't let that door hit ya on the way out!

-Andrew92

[MWatkins]

See ya Rick! Yes!!!!!!!

How I wished I lived in PA...just this one time...so I could have voted against this guy.

Although...that's one less topic to discuss on the show next week lol...

MW

[Derek Ortt]

The weather data was always going to be available. That is not exactly a fair attack on fmr Senator Santorum

The text of the bill stated that NWS would HAVE to make PUBLIC all of its data for FREE.Satellite imagery and model plots pre generated are a service. Those plotting the data have a right to demand payment for that service.

If one does not want to pay, one can always get the data directly via an NCEP ftp site and generate one's own plots

[Derek Ortt]

He proposed a bill in 2005 to try to make us pay for our weather information, which of course comes out of our tax dollars. We would get warnings but that is pretty much it, unless we wanted to pay Accuweather or another private sector.


That is far from the truth. See the post above this one for what the bill really stated

[Jim Cantore]

The weather data thing isn't the worst thing he's said or done, some of his actions make me suprised he got as many votes as he did.

[Andrew92]

He proposed a bill in 2005 to try to make us pay for our weather information, which of course comes out of our tax dollars. We would get warnings but that is pretty much it, unless we wanted to pay Accuweather or another private sector.


That is far from the truth. See the post above this one for what the bill really stated

OK, sorry. It just seemed like some people worded it similar to that way and I guess that's how I read it. But I understand now. Thanks.

Still, glad Santorum is gone.

-Andrew92

[StormScanWx]

So does the bill proposed just die or be eliminated now that he is out of office?

[Aslkahuna]

He's still in office until January. At that time there will be a new Congress and all Legislation (except for any holdover FY07 Budget bills) starts from scratch.

Steve

[Drano]

Hi all -

I've been enjoying lurking and reading the hurricane discussions, but I haven't had anything to add since I live in MI. I remember this bill coming up though.

This would not have forced the NWS to supply weather data for free. In fact, the intent appears to be to keep the NWS from competing with other services that add value - ie making pretty pictures of radar data, which potentially would mean all the current NWS web stuff would have to come down. The relevant section -

(b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR.--The
20 National Weather Service shall not provide, or assist other
21 entities in providing, a service or product (other than a
22 service or product described in subsection (a)(1)(A)) that
23 is or could be provided by the private sector unless--

1 (1) the Secretary determines that the private
2 sector is unwilling or unable to provide such service
3 or product; or
4 (2) the United States Government is obligated
5 to provide such service or product under inter-
6 national aviation agreements to provide meteorolog-
7 ical services and exchange meteorological informa-
8 tion.

Here is the full text
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=s109-786

[Derek Ortt]

images are NOT data. The data is the actual numbers. Those have to be plotted in order to see the pretty images. Someone has to write the programs to make that plot. If one wants to be charged for that work, I have no problem with it

That said, EVERYONE can have their own personal weather loops on their home computers. Check into the program GARP, though you n\would need the capability to receive large amounts of satellite and radar data

[Drano]

Derek Ort wrote

images are NOT data. The data is the actual numbers. Those have to be plotted in order to see the pretty images. Someone has to write the programs to make that plot. If one wants to be charged for that work, I have no problem with it

I know, and I know the data is available. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you , it's just that I can't see anything in the bill about forcing the NWS to give anything away. Rather, it looks like the opposite in that it potentially limits the ability of the NWS to supply data that has been enhanced - ie turned into bitmaps for instance. It's possible that was not the intent of the bill, but it's vague enough that it's easy to interpret it as an attempt to keep the NWS from directly supplying radar loops etc. that could compete with private weather companies.