The role of private weather agencies

[dtrain44]

It seems that the consensus on the board is that Accuweather has been quite out of line lately in moving forward with tropical systems when official products have not done so. I generally agree with this position, although there are some posters who do not. However, if we're right about that, another question is raised: what exactly is the purpose of a private weather agency if going beyond official products is irresponsible?

It seems that our position makes it impossible for a private agency to have a significant role in the domain of weather. Is it possible for an agency to stay entirely within official products and still provide a meaningful service.

A second question that I would ask is whether tropical weather is unique: perhaps a private agency could be responsible in speaking beyond the official position in non-tropical matters. However, severe/winter weather is really the biggest threat to most Americans and one could argue that any position that would justify opposition to Accuweather or others from speaking beyond the official position would also rule this conduct out in nontropical weather.

I'm interested to know what other posters think about this larger issue outside of the specific context of 96L or 99L....

[miamicanes177]

I do not believe Accuweather was out of line at all for calling Felix TD 6 before the NHC because it clearly was one. They could call 99L a hurricane if they choose to and not have any legal liability. Accuweather has disclaimers that notify people they can not be held responsible for inaccuracies or inconsistencies among other things. It is perfectly legal for them to call the tropical section of their site "Hurricane Center". I think Accuweather is great because they obviously do very good business. They have plenty of meteorologist on staff and rake in a ton of money. At the end of day the amount of money you bring in is all that matters in determining how successful a business you are. The more category 5 hurricanes Accuweather can forecast the more subscribers. The more subscribers the more $.

[Frank2]

I always (always as in since the early '80s) believed that private or University weather organizations were there to work in tandem with NOAA (a good example seemed to be "CB" Bluestein and his group of students from the University of Oklahoma), but, it seems that the money issue is destroying that, especially among the weather "businesses" that are media-related - they all seem to want to be the one that eclipses not only NOAA (NWS or NHC), but, TWC, CNN, and FOX, too, so, the "for profit weather businesses" now seem to use each other as a battering ram, each trying to best the other...

The arrogant "mean meteorologist" in the movie Twister now seems to be more reality than ever before...

Free enterprise is not always a good thing, since money is always bound to become the prime goal...

In the "old days" most worked together out of love for weather, but, now...

[dtrain44]

Frank, I think it's also fair to ask whether this is really about weather or if it's just an entertainment thing. While I often think that competition can create innovation, I think recent developments in weather media have generally tried to use a scarier, more sensationalist approach in order to try to attract viewers/customers. Private enterprises have different incentives than a government forecasting service and I find it difficult to see how those incentives are going to create a purer information. How much attention did the NHC pay to "market" factors when you were there? Did the NHC ever consciously consider efforts to raise awareness outside of simply forecasting as effectively as possible?

Miamicanes, I agree with your point about Accuweather being a successful business, but I don't know that the fact of a successful business necessarily indicates quality. None of us would think that Rihanna is a better singer than Luciano Pavarotti, but a purely business perspective would indicate that she's probably going to be the better bet (presuming, of course, that Luciano would be alive to record another album). I think you hit the nail on the head: Accuweather has an incentive to forecast bigger and badder storms that the NHC doesn't have, especially when they themselves and the popular media cherry-pick examples of their effectiveness to bash the NHC and other official outlets. They have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't mean that we should endorse it.....

[jasons2k]

In my opinion, it's one thing for a forecaster to say in his blog "I think this already has the characteristics of a TD and the NHC, in my opinion, should upgrade this shortly."

It's quite another to post an image 'designating' a system as a TD, with LAT/LON coordinates, windspeed, and a pressure reading (and an erroneous one at that). IMO that just causes confusion with the general public and media outlets. At least TWC does seem to show some restraint and plays by the "old rules" here, but I think some other private firms cross the line.

It may be legal but I wouldn't consider it ethical.

[flwxwatcher]

The big issue I take with a certain Private Weather company is they sometimes go out of there way to bash TPC and have in the past accused the TPC of withholding recon data because they have their own agenda and accused them of naming or not naming storms to make sure they hit there yearly predicted storm totals.

[Ixolib]

I personally don't see the need for, nor do I understand why private weather entities exist at all. Seems to me everything one could want already exists in extreme detail for free from the U.S. Gov't.

[mf_dolphin]

I personally don't see the need for, nor do I understand why private weather entities exist at all. Seems to me everything one could want already exists in extreme detail for free from the U.S. Gov't.

I think the difference here is the interpretation of the available data. A lot of business are dependent on weather forecasts that directly address their specific buiness concerns. That's the section of the market that private weather companies are best equipped to handle. IMO Accuweather stepped way over the line when they applied an official designation to a system. There's only one entity that has that authority and it's not them....

[Cryomaniac]

It seems from a few of the comments here that some would like it to be illegal for private agencys to apply 'official designations' to systems. Does anyone actually think this?

[Downdraft]

Weather is big business if you are in the commodities market, want to move an oil platform, fish or do a host of other things. Second opinions add to the consumer's overall knowledge base to make educated decisions and like it or not, not everyone wants to risk their lives or fortunes with just the input of the one source especially when that source is the U.S. government. So should there be private weather businesses I think the answer is yes. That being said, when the lives of people are at stake the public needs to have one confident source for warning information. That responsibility has been given by law to the National Weather Service and no one in my opinion does it better. When a private company wants to start declaring it's own tropical cyclones or recommending evacuations prior to or without the concurrence of the NHC I think they have crossed the line and created dangerous confusion with the public. For years one company in particular has tried to erode, denigrate, and destroy the National Weather Service's authority or ability to issue timely information to the public. Most recently the Santorium bill would have taken away from the American public basic forecast information now provided as a free product by the NWS. You want a forecast about the possibility of severe weather you buy it but when it suddenly is upon you than they can warn you for free. Considering the information is gathered with technology paid for by the taxpayer and made available to the private agencies at no cost this is flat wrong. Unless I am mistaken they aren't launching their own weather satellites from State College, PA. So to sum up my personal stance if you want to pay someone to make independent forecasts of the weather fine shop till you drop. Just remember if you forecast enough scenarios you can never be wrong something one private forecaster does with great expertise yet surprisingly so few see it for it is. I prefer an agency that answers to the public it serves and verifies what it does and, as for warnings NWS or NHC period.

[Ixolib]

Weather is big business if you are in the commodities market, want to move an oil platform, fish or do a host of other things. Second opinions add to the consumer's overall knowledge base to make educated decisions and like it or not, not everyone wants to risk their lives or fortunes with just the input of the one source especially when that source is the U.S. government. So should there be private weather businesses I think the answer is yes. That being said, when the lives of people are at stake the public needs to have one confident source for warning information. That responsibility has been given by law to the National Weather Service and no one in my opinion does it better. When a private company wants to start declaring it's own tropical cyclones or recommending evacuations prior to or without the concurrence of the NHC I think they have crossed the line and created dangerous confusion with the public. For years one company in particular has tried to erode, denigrate, and destroy the National Weather Service's authority or ability to issue timely information to the public. Most recently the Santorium bill would have taken away from the American public basic forecast information now provided as a free product by the NWS. You want a forecast about the possibility of severe weather you buy it but when it suddenly is upon you than they can warn you for free. Considering the information is gathered with technology paid for by the taxpayer and made available to the private agencies at no cost this is flat wrong. Unless I am mistaken they aren't launching their own weather satellites from State College, PA. So to sum up my personal stance if you want to pay someone to make independent forecasts of the weather fine shop till you drop. Just remember if you forecast enough scenarios you can never be wrong something one private forecaster does with great expertise yet surprisingly so few see it for it is. I prefer an agency that answers to the public it serves and verifies what it does and, as for warnings NWS or NHC period.

I think I got lost in there somewhere.
Perhaps you could re-summarize???

Anyway, don't all of these private companies and independent forecasters get the overwhelming bulk of their data from government-supplied resources that already exist? As Marshall pointed out, I see the point of providing specific interpretation for a private company that "ASKED" for the info. But where does that interpretation end? Is it okay for it to become potential gospel that seemingly ends up becoming a matter of public record - i.e. the Accuweather points made on 99L?

There are even independents who actually make documented "recommendations" on the reactions and preparations nations and individuals should take for tropical cyclones. Is that merely interpretation on the independent's part, or is that too potentially stepping over the line -- especially since an officially recognized and funded organization already exists to do just that, i.e. the NWS & NHC? And along those lines, do these independents and private companies supply the same kind of "advice" or interpretation for other types of storm systems, i.e., tornado warnings/watches, blizzards, flash floods, severe tstms, etc?

Interesting topic and interesting discussion……

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I strongly believe that private own weather should be allowed. In fact encourged to spread. The more options the better I feel. We are a free nation with private and public rights and we are the best on earth bar none because of it, I would hate to see that limited or destroyed.

JB has a degree in tropical Meteorology(At least I heard)more then 99 percent of the people on these boards. I see no reason not to respect his option of things. 99L had everything but "enough" of a warm core. In a weak frontal like system. It had everything else to be upgraded besided those things, those are important. But different people have different options on how things work. It appears he did nothing what so ever wrong, but be a little more "liberal" then the nhc. I would love for more forecast and video's(hopefully all free) on the net. I would watch for hours. It would be a dream.

[M_0331]

I would like to compare private weather corporations(PWC) to two similar private corporations.
Airlines: the military sends a million $ to train a pilot and he serves 6 years. The military wants the pilot to re-enlist but can not pay the pilot anywhere the $ the pilot will get to fly for the airlines. Yes, the pilot does not bad mouth the military but the military must train a new pilot at the same or higher cost vs: keeping a trained pilot for 4 to 6 more years. So this extra cost comes out of our pockets.
Private Military Corporations(PMC): A trained Special Forces member or battle hardened infantry member(basic Grunt, Paratrooper or Ranger) can get out of military and join a PMC at 7 to 10x $. The U. S. military is bound by rules of engagement, code of honor & duty. The PMC is not bound by nothing but to complete the mission. The PMC & US military get along most of the time but there has a number of friendly fire events. A US commander can not tell a known local group of PMC that he will be conducting a mission in their area due to security risks. The US military is the big boy on the block but the PMC are a pain in the axx. The PMC complain to higher brass and just add another wildcard in combat. I saw a lot of local mecrs in 1968 where they should not be but they were covert. Now the PMC are overt and causing the US military all kind of problems. The NHC is bound by it's own code of duty to the people but the PWC are not and also a nasty wildcard that has not been reined in yet.
To finish; if there is a task, someone will do it & be aggressive & be well paid.

[flwxwatcher]

I would love for more forecast and video's(hopefully all free) on the net. I would watch for hours. It would be a dream.

If certain private weather Companies had there way you would be paying for more weather information and getting less free data.

[HURAKAN]

I think it's fair to let everyone play in the game. If you want a product, and I can give it to you, then buy it. Supply vs. Demand. Also, many weather companies that I have met, like WxWorx, work by taking the information provided by the NWS and TPC and selling to its clients in a format that is easier to read and easier to find the exact information they want.

Now, when you get in the way of the NWS and/or the TPC, then is when I get angry. For many years both agencies have provided very accurate and reliable information that has saved lives and properties, and the American people didn't have to exactly buy it from them. I know through taxes we pay for that information provided by the NWS and the TPC. Have they commited errors during the years? Of course! People need to realize that it's a FORECAST, not exactly what will happen, and that's not going to change, never. Not even if you pay a million dollars per hour.

If you have the money to pay to get the forecast, then go ahead. But you need to realize that what you are getting is as good or worse than what the NWS and/or the TPC is forecasting.

I work for a weather company and I do the forecast for a newspaper in Puerto Rico. I get most of my information through the NWS in San Juan. Could the newspaper just get the information from the NWS? Yes, they could, but they are willing to pay to receive the information in a format that is just plugging in the numbers and the images for the weather conditions.

[Coredesat]

It appears he did nothing what so ever wrong, but be a little more "liberal" then the nhc. I would love for more forecast and video's(hopefully all free) on the net. I would watch for hours. It would be a dream.

Actually, he and Accuweather were spreading misinformation based on an assertion that they have just as much of a right to assign official designations to systems as the National Hurricane Center (even going so far as to give their hurricane division an ambiguous name - the Hurricane Center). That assertion is unfounded as they are not recognized by the WMO - only the National Hurricane Center is. The met I contacted about their early TD6 upgrade refused to explain their reasoning for the upgrade or what data it was based on. Charging money for false information is needless to say bad, and is a poor example for other private agencies to follow.

Also, with all due respect to JB, he sometimes gives certain models far too much weight and overhypes systems, such as 99L. I wouldn't want private agencies issuing warnings on systems that clearly aren't developing (despite what the models are saying) - it would promote complacency and distrust for weather forecasters, which is the absolute last thing we need. If private agencies do any forecasting, they need to make double sure they know what they're doing.

[dtrain44]

Thanks for the great discussion, all.

I absolutely agree that private weather services should be allowed - that is fundamentally a First Amendment issue. I agree with those posters who are arguing that these products simply aren't as good as what the government provides and that these efforts often overstep their boundaries. For example, the Accuweather crew calling themselves the "Hurricane Center" is just asking for confusion. There's no reason for them to do that other than to grant themselves quasi-official status and I simply don't agree with that.

The incentives that work well elsewhere do not work well in weather forecasting. The products that sell best are those that are moving further from the truth. I think that's really unfortunate. What I'm ultimately calling for is self-censorship: private companies can sell whatever they want, but they shouldn't a lot of the time. It may be a naive perspective, but freedom of speech comes with responsibilities as well and I don't think that private weather services do very much to meet those responsibilities. Spreading one's opinion is perfectly cool, but one must also realize that the incentives that are there make it less likely that one will be open, honest, and objective. NHC forecasters don't have to interest anyone in order to keep their jobs: they just have to perform at a certain level. Accuweather guys aren't scrutinized as closely, bear no official responsibilities, and have their performance measured by what they sell and not what they do. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, just that they should be careful....

[miamicanes177]

Actually, he and Accuweather were spreading misinformation based on an assertion that they have just as much of a right to assign official designations to systems as the National Hurricane Center (even going so far as to give their hurricane division an ambiguous name - the Hurricane Center). That assertion is unfounded as they are not recognized by the WMO - only the National Hurricane Center is. The met I contacted about their early TD6 upgrade refused to explain their reasoning for the upgrade or what data it was based on. Charging money for false information is needless to say bad, and is a poor example for other private agencies to follow.

Also, with all due respect to JB, he sometimes gives certain models far too much weight and overhypes systems, such as 99L. I wouldn't want private agencies issuing warnings on systems that clearly aren't developing (despite what the models are saying) - it would promote complacency and distrust for weather forecasters, which is the absolute last thing we need. If private agencies do any forecasting, they need to make double sure they know what they're doing.

Accuweather was not spreading misinformation on TD6, but if by chance they were then it was within their legal right to do so. You need to take a look at their Terms and Conditions webpage. Aside from that, TD6 was quickly upgraded within a few hours of Accuweather declaring it TD6. NHC was simply late on upgrading it because they had to wait for the recon data. The Accuweather Hurricane Center was correct in upgrading it. I think what people need to realize is that Accuweather is a private company that is not tied in any way to the NHC. According to Accuweather the invest had strengthened to TD6. I'm not sure how that is false information because again the Accuweather Hurricane Center makes their own forecasts and is tied in no way to the NHC. Therefore it can not be misinformation. Not all meteorologist agree on everything and it is important for the public to have multiple sources of information. I personally am not a "one size fits all" type. I like multiple sources to get as much information as possible. Accuweather provides this.

As for JB, I see nothing wrong with his forecast on 99L. Many pro mets, including some on this board, have been forecasting a hurricane from 99L. The NHC is even saying a tropical cyclone could form as conditions become more favorable. JB has earned a lot of respect from people and I do trust his forecasts. He is not right always but nobody is in the weather business. He tells people what he believes will happen and does not sugarcoat it.

[Coredesat]

Well, the thing about 99L was, in the video JB posted but later removed, he was calling it TD7.

[Frank2]

Re: dtrain44's post

How much attention did the NHC pay to "market" factors when you were there? Did the NHC ever consciously consider efforts to raise awareness outside of simply forecasting as effectively as possible?

Aside from the NHC Director's busy public speaking schedule (which is mostly during the off-season), in the days before the Internet, NHC's mission was best known through the distribution of various hurricane preparedness brochures, and, the many privately-produced "start of hurricane season" television programs, that are still seen today...

As far as market factors, I'd say that it's safe to state that this element really wasn't considered by the NHC at that time (in coordination with the NOAA Office of Communications), until, I'd say, after the fairly busy 1985 season, when the networks began to pay regular visits to the office (Nightline, Larry King, Today, Good Morning America, etc.) - that year seemed to be the true start of NHC's "PR" age...

By the mid-1980s, TWC (only 3 years old in 1985), was beginning to make it's presence felt, in addition to Dr. William Gray's annual forecasts to the public, which began in 1983, so, I'd say it was really in the mid-80's that the NHC was essentially forced to enter the crazy world of media, though, as some here know, NOAA (in it's role as the NWS) already had one fairly successful 15-minute PBS program each morning, (known as "AM Weather"), which first aired in 1978, and, is considered by some (even on this board) to be the predecessor to TWC, so, even in the late '70s, those in NOAA were already beginning to understand that television media, for good or bad, was going to be something that they would have to deal with, in order to stay competitive in the growing field of "weather infotainment".

Before this change, the NHC (as the NWS) were "just" considered (by the public and media) to be a Government weather agency, which distributed various forms of weather information to the public - nothing more...

As was typical prior to the 1980's, most interviews with the NHC (as I learned) were done over the phone by the radio networks (CBS, NBC, ABC or AP), so, it was a change to go from radio interviews, to having film crews (not video tape) frequent the office, to the actual "live feed" that we see today, so, I guess you could say that the '80s were a period of transition for many in NOAA, the NWS, and NHC (again, for good or bad)...

I'd have to say, in answer to your question, that this media transition did not come by following any one market factor or trend, but, came as a result of those at NOAA recognizing a subtle change in the National media as a whole, and, understanding that they would need to accept this change, at least to some point, in order to make their mission better known to the public...

Frank