|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 26, 2005, 6:37 PM
Post #1 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
Senator Rick Santorum has introduced a bill in the Senate (after being lobbied by Accuweather) that would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing free weather forecasts.
Santorum wants you to pay Accuweather, Weather.com, or another commercial weather service for the privelege of getting packaged weather information that is inferior to that provided by the NWS.
Let's not forget that those commercial weather forecasts are based on data gathered from satellites put into orbit with YOUR TAX DOLLARS. The NWS will, in effect, become the taxpayer supported research and development division of Accuweather/Weather.com/Intellicast etc.
The worst part about it is that the commercial weather services give you far less information than the NWS, essentially a dumbed down version of the weather.
It's not hard to imagine what will happen when weather data is only available through commercial sources.
Let's say you're planning an ice climbing trip to Ouray. Want to see the satellite imagery of the Western US to help decide if that predicted snow is from a major storm, or just a local system? Nope, sorry. That's gonna cost extra.
Call your senators and tell them to kill S 786, the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/.../21/m1a_wx_0421.html
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 26, 2005, 6:42 PM
Post #2 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
Holy triple-post Batman!
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 26, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #3 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
triple post
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 27, 2005, 5:21 PM
Post #4 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
Everyone else is OK with paying twice for weather forecasts?
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Apr 27, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #5 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
just go to www.noaa.gov
its got the satellite images and you can reasonably discern what the weather will do from there. I never use those others you mentioned because they are put together by subjective meteorologists, and i also got schooled in atmospheric science living witha PhD candidate for that topic a few years back so all i really need id the raw data.....
but rally the people that can vote, its about making the scum suckers work for their 164K salaries and seemingly endless expense accounts.... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
montafoner
Apr 27, 2005, 5:30 PM
Post #6 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 143
|
Call me an armchair meteorologist, but I prefer to set my own weather forecasts. I need access to the raw data/observations. Since when does FOX give the ocean temp, dominant swell height, direction and period? Since when does FOX give the high altitude forecast?
Thank you NOAA for providing this information free of double-charge.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Apr 27, 2005, 5:31 PM
Post #7 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
I get AccuWeather, Pilot Weather, and other weather services for free, and find them to be accurate (well, as accurate as any other weather service, including NWS.)
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 27, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #8 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Santorum is perhaps the biggest jerkoff to ever walk the planet!!!
Are you familiar with this movement to use his name as a slang term for something truly nasty?? What an evil plan!!
Here it is, if you're interested...
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 27, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #9 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: just go to www.noaa.gov its got the satellite images and you can reasonably discern what the weather will do from there
That's the point. That shit won't be available for free from the NOAA anymore if this bill goes through.
And if the commercial services intended to continue GIVING AWAY their weather forecasts in the future, why the need for this bill?
In reply to: I get AccuWeather, Pilot Weather, and other weather services for free, and find them to be accurate (well, as accurate as any other weather service, including NWS.)
There are those of us who prefer access to the raw data. Try forecasting surf on AccuWeather. Those sites are geared towards golfers, drivers, and business travelers.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 27, 2005, 5:44 PM
Post #10 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
he MUST be joking. i mean do your senators really have so much time on their hands to even consider passing stuff like that???
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Apr 27, 2005, 6:04 PM
Post #11 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
In reply to: he MUST be joking. i mean do your senators really have so much money from lobbyists on their hands to even consider passing stuff like that???
Yes. Yes they do.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 27, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #12 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Santorum is one of the most powerful senators right now (besides the point that many of his views are mideival). Luckily, his popularity is waning. Next year will be a re-election for him, and the opposition is already mounting!
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Apr 27, 2005, 6:21 PM
Post #13 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Call me an armchair meteorologist, but I prefer to set my own weather forecasts. I need access to the raw data/observations. Since when does FOX give the ocean temp, dominant swell height, direction and period? Since when does FOX give the high altitude forecast? Thank you NOAA for providing this information free of double-charge.
Amen Brother. You guys getting waves over there on the East Coast? The wave machine has dried up over here.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 27, 2005, 6:26 PM
Post #14 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
The problem with this bill is two-fold:
1) To give accurate severe-weather forecasts, the NWS has to be forecasting EVERYTHING. As the head of the NWS pointed out in regards to this bill, you don't just plug in your clock everytime you want to know what time it is.
2) Under the freedom of information act, we have access to all of this data anyway, NOAA's website just means we don't have to go to the Library of Congress to get it. That's all.
So if this bill goes through, its still effectively unenforcible and doesn't save the taxpayer a single cent. In addition, we have international treaties in place such that if anyone REALLY wanted the data, they could have a pal in the UK (or elsewhere) set up a server that posts the data that we are bound by treatie to give them, in real time. This thing does NOTHING. Its just stupid legislation and its blatent pandering to high dollar contributors.
Finally, weather sources other than weather.com and accuweather are fighting it. Check out www.wunderground.com for an example. What this bill will actually do is kill accuweather's competition, both private and public sectors.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffstephan
Apr 27, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #15 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2003
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: Senator Rick Santorum has introduced a bill in the Senate (after being lobbied by Accuweather) that would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing free weather forecasts. Santorum wants you to pay Accuweather, Weather.com, or another commercial weather service for the privelege of getting packaged weather information that is inferior to that provided by the NWS. Let's not forget that those commercial weather forecasts are based on data gathered from satellites put into orbit with YOUR TAX DOLLARS. The NWS will, in effect, become the taxpayer supported research and development division of Accuweather/Weather.com/Intellicast etc. The worst part about it is that the commercial weather services give you far less information than the NWS, essentially a dumbed down version of the weather. It's not hard to imagine what will happen when weather data is only available through commercial sources. Let's say you're planning an ice climbing trip to Ouray. Want to see the satellite imagery of the Western US to help decide if that predicted snow is from a major storm, or just a local system? Nope, sorry. That's gonna cost extra. Call your senators and tell them to kill S 786, the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/.../21/m1a_wx_0421.html
These are the kind of informative posts I appreciate and deserve GT's
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 27, 2005, 6:28 PM
Post #16 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
jeffstephan
Apr 27, 2005, 6:30 PM
Post #17 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2003
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: Senator Rick Santorum has introduced a bill in the Senate (after being lobbied by Accuweather) that would prohibit the National Weather Service from providing free weather forecasts. Santorum wants you to pay Accuweather, Weather.com, or another commercial weather service for the privelege of getting packaged weather information that is inferior to that provided by the NWS. Let's not forget that those commercial weather forecasts are based on data gathered from satellites put into orbit with YOUR TAX DOLLARS. The NWS will, in effect, become the taxpayer supported research and development division of Accuweather/Weather.com/Intellicast etc. The worst part about it is that the commercial weather services give you far less information than the NWS, essentially a dumbed down version of the weather. It's not hard to imagine what will happen when weather data is only available through commercial sources. Let's say you're planning an ice climbing trip to Ouray. Want to see the satellite imagery of the Western US to help decide if that predicted snow is from a major storm, or just a local system? Nope, sorry. That's gonna cost extra. Call your senators and tell them to kill S 786, the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/.../21/m1a_wx_0421.html
These are the kind of informative posts I appreciate and deserve GT's.
|
|
|
|
|
jeffstephan
Apr 27, 2005, 6:42 PM
Post #18 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 4, 2003
Posts: 183
|
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 27, 2005, 6:51 PM
Post #19 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: he MUST be joking. i mean do your senators really have so much money from lobbyists on their hands to even consider passing stuff like that??? Yes. Yes they do.
i know that :wink:
but how much money can a "pay for weather forecast" service generate????
we dont have anything like this here because nobody is stupid enough to believe that people would actually pay for such info thats avaiable for free.
but i can understand that those free services are a major pita for such stupid people :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
reach
Apr 27, 2005, 6:51 PM
Post #20 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2005
Posts: 64
|
bump
|
|
|
|
|
outdoorsie
Apr 27, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #21 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 302
|
Ooooo... this would suck.
As an atmospheric sciences graduate student, I spend a lot of time on the NWS website, and other weather sites as well. The sites I visit all provide direct model output for free... but I could see that being something they could charge for, if somebody really wanted to. Seems to me, though, if this was really costing people money, they would charge for it. There are *so many* free weather sites out there... how would they regulate them? I mean, the univeristy of wyoming gives upper air soundings and analyzed plots, is somebody in DC going to prevent them from running this site?
There's a link to the full text of the bill and a short but interesting discussion here: http://www.capitalweather.com/. It may not be quite as bad as the OP says, the text of the bill is confusing and contradictory.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 27, 2005, 8:34 PM
Post #22 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
The gunks cost money, the weather is going to cost money, what's next, canned air for sale? "Peri-Air" anyone? (oldschool movie reference for you Space Ball fans).
My wife's grandmother gave me a home weather devise one year for Christmas. It was a lenth of red rope that you tie to a tree outside your kitchen window. If the rope was wet, its raining. If the rope was stiff, its cold. If the rope is other than vertical, its windy. If you can't see the rope, its foggy. You don't need the weather channel, all you need is a window.
|
|
|
|
|
glyrocks
Apr 27, 2005, 8:46 PM
Post #23 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 614
|
if paying for it brings some good weather to boone, i'm in.
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Apr 27, 2005, 9:01 PM
Post #24 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Cut and paste this:
Dear Senator __________,
I am writing as a concerned constituent regarding S 786, the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005. I urge you to vote no on this bill. I happen to use the free weather information provided on the NOAA/NWS website on a daily basis. I believe this information should be free and readily accessible to the public. I also think that the raw data and more detailed forecasts provided by the NWS are far more accurate than commercial forecasts. I thank you for your time and consideration of my request. I look forward to seeing this bill killed before it becomes a law.
Sincerely,
___________
To your Senators: http://www.senate.com/state/
I sent this letter to Boxer and Feinstein about five minutes ago. I use the NWS forecasts for detailed snow forecasts in the Sierra in winter. Far more accurate and in depth than the free Weather Channel application I have on my desktop. I check the NWS page for the West Slope Northern Sierra Nevada every day in the winter (I'm a bit of a ski/snow nut if you couldn't tell). Even if the bill doesn't actually affect anything, the chance that it will is more than I'm willing to take. Take 2 minutes to email your senators please.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Apr 27, 2005, 9:18 PM
Post #25 of 43
(9426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
epic_ed moved this thread from General to Community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
