A Week of Concerns About the National Weather Service
 |
| National Weather Service Forecast Office |
- Mashable.
- Gawker.
- Cliff Mass (technical and political)
- The Philadelphia Inquirer
- The Washington Post
- The Washington Post (second article)
- The New York Times
I want to make a few personal comments about all
of this. Some of the problems (i.e., NWS computers slowing/crashing, flash
flood warnings for the entire East Coast) can be solved by coming to AccuWeather. Our computers never slowed during Sandy and we never displayed
the flash flood warning mentioned that caused the NWS embarrassment.
Second, AccuWeather invests yearly to receive the entire suite of worldwide European model products made available outside of the European Center. As discussed in the articles, these are the best in class. Our goal is to create the best forecasts and products and we select our tools accordingly.
That said, there are genuine issues that affect everyone. For example, if a critical weather satellite fails, that affects all of us. These issues are a real concern and, if allowed to continue unresolved, will eventually cause some degradation of forecasts and, possibly, warnings for everyone. As several of the articles have pointed out, this is not an issue of funding. One can, of course, always argue more money is better or "needed." But the issue is frequently more about prioritizing funding rather than one of simply dollars.
Finally, while I agree with Kathryn Miles' New York Times' overall assessment, I want to make a few comments. She says,
Meteorologists at all levels of the National Weather Service are exceedingly talented, hardworking scientists. They can do far more than their jobs currently allow, including issuing seven-day storm forecasts and using global information systems to create surge maps that would assist emergency managers in evacuations.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the NWS and its people -- extremely dedicated. In Warnings, I call the NWS the taxpayer's best bargain. That said, part of the issue is that the NWS continuously thinks up or is pushed into new missions while its core mission (i.e., making sure the satellites don't fail without a backup in place, and that warnings are correctly issued) suffers. For example, the NWS has been creating a new mission called "decision support" where it sends local office meteorologists into the field to "consult" with local agencies during potential disasters. One could ask, "What is wrong with that?" First, all of the information in this era can be better and more quickly distributed electronically than sending individual lone-wolves to selected local agencies. Also, this means some agencies may get information and advice and others do not. It also can lead to different information being offered to different agencies. Finally, it pulls critical personnel away from their jobs at the very times they are most needed to protect the public.
I would also add that meteorologists from America's weather industry -- companies like AccuWeather -- already do this and we already provide the detailed seven-day forecasts and GIS products Ms. Miles mentions in her NYT piece.
Said another way, the NWS, in a time of limited budgets and personnel, is sending people into the field that are needed in-house to perform its own critical mission. I believe one of the National Weather Service' fundamental problems is one of focus. Yes, they "can" do more (sending people out of the forecast office) when less (keeping in their people in place in critical weather situations) is what is called for. I want the National Weather Service to insure its tornado and hurricane warnings for the public are of tip-top accuracy, not putting people into press boxes during college football games.
I'll continue to update readers as all of this shakes out.
Second, AccuWeather invests yearly to receive the entire suite of worldwide European model products made available outside of the European Center. As discussed in the articles, these are the best in class. Our goal is to create the best forecasts and products and we select our tools accordingly.
That said, there are genuine issues that affect everyone. For example, if a critical weather satellite fails, that affects all of us. These issues are a real concern and, if allowed to continue unresolved, will eventually cause some degradation of forecasts and, possibly, warnings for everyone. As several of the articles have pointed out, this is not an issue of funding. One can, of course, always argue more money is better or "needed." But the issue is frequently more about prioritizing funding rather than one of simply dollars.
Finally, while I agree with Kathryn Miles' New York Times' overall assessment, I want to make a few comments. She says,
Meteorologists at all levels of the National Weather Service are exceedingly talented, hardworking scientists. They can do far more than their jobs currently allow, including issuing seven-day storm forecasts and using global information systems to create surge maps that would assist emergency managers in evacuations.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the NWS and its people -- extremely dedicated. In Warnings, I call the NWS the taxpayer's best bargain. That said, part of the issue is that the NWS continuously thinks up or is pushed into new missions while its core mission (i.e., making sure the satellites don't fail without a backup in place, and that warnings are correctly issued) suffers. For example, the NWS has been creating a new mission called "decision support" where it sends local office meteorologists into the field to "consult" with local agencies during potential disasters. One could ask, "What is wrong with that?" First, all of the information in this era can be better and more quickly distributed electronically than sending individual lone-wolves to selected local agencies. Also, this means some agencies may get information and advice and others do not. It also can lead to different information being offered to different agencies. Finally, it pulls critical personnel away from their jobs at the very times they are most needed to protect the public.
I would also add that meteorologists from America's weather industry -- companies like AccuWeather -- already do this and we already provide the detailed seven-day forecasts and GIS products Ms. Miles mentions in her NYT piece.
Said another way, the NWS, in a time of limited budgets and personnel, is sending people into the field that are needed in-house to perform its own critical mission. I believe one of the National Weather Service' fundamental problems is one of focus. Yes, they "can" do more (sending people out of the forecast office) when less (keeping in their people in place in critical weather situations) is what is called for. I want the National Weather Service to insure its tornado and hurricane warnings for the public are of tip-top accuracy, not putting people into press boxes during college football games.
I'll continue to update readers as all of this shakes out.
you yield to no one in your /critique/ of the NWS, you mean. with "admirers" like you, who needs enemies? for a senior employee of a Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador, you do a pretty horrible job of taking on the WRN message.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation
you'd rather focus on "us vs. them" and driving wedges and engendering distrust in the entire system. shame on you.
but perhaps government agencies like FEMA should all just hire AccuWeather so that the public can pay for it's weather information and support twice over?
Readers: The above comment was written 4 hours after another major National Weather Service outage (its NOAAPort service). That outage, obviously, was not mentioned in the original posting.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "us versus them" it is each party sticking to its core mission.