212 replies to this topic

[isohume]

blue sky, on 17 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

My position is the NWS should supply data and forcast. I do not see the cost benifits of the other things they do.

Can I see your data? Specifically a cost/benefit breakdown of the fire, aviation, warning, marine, hydrology, climate, decision support, outreach, and research programs? I'd like to run it up the chain.

[famartin]

snowman21, on 17 February 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I thought that was the NCDC? All the NWS climate products always say that they're unofficial and refer people to NCDC products.

That's only for legal reasons.

For all intents and purposes, NWS is the custodian. We maintain the equipment, install new sites, close old ones. We also have more say in QC than NCDC (i.e., if NCDC QC's something and we think they did it wrong, our opinion trumps theirs).

I often think we should fold NCDC back into NWS, like it was back in the day.

[Rainshadow]

blue sky, on 17 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Mission creep. Thats what a government agency does.

My position is the NWS should supply data and forcast. I do not see the cost benifits of the other things they do.

Local officies were created when technology was not advanced. Now..in great part.. thanks to NWS, we have technology that eliminates the need for all these local officies.

The way we are moving there will be apps that will be giving you forcasts 30 seconds ahead of time.

Hey it's raining at 16th and market and its heading your way!

No cost benefits to the aviation industry (accuracy) to have a single person forecast for 10 terminals instead of 100? The aviation initiative at OKX cut delays in the New York area airports in half. Do you honestly think they could have done that if they were forecasting for every terminal from Bangor to Raleigh?

[jshetley]

I cant speak for any other area but I just cant see someone in New york or anywhere else that has to forecast for the entire country being able to do as good of a job as our NWS in Greer. There are just too many variables around here especially in winter with the mountains and trying to predict what will happen with cold air damming when a difference of just a few miles can make a huge difference in the type of weather an area gets. I have seen a 30 degree difference over just 50 miles or less with wedge boundries in the GSP CWA. Also Hopefully warnings are never turned over to the private sector since that would really be a disaster waiting to happen.

[OceanStWx]

blue sky, on 17 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Mission creep. Thats what a government agency does.

My position is the NWS should supply data and forcast. I do not see the cost benifits of the other things they do.

Local officies were created when technology was not advanced. Now..in great part.. thanks to NWS, we have technology that eliminates the need for all these local officies.

The way we are moving there will be apps that will be giving you forcasts 30 seconds ahead of time.

Hey it's raining at 16th and market and its heading your way!

What specifically has been the advancement in technology that makes local offices obsolete? Forecast and guidance have gotten better, but research points to there being little improvement in public response to forecasts. That would be an argument for more local presence (for outreach) not less.

Regarding the last two statements. I think there is a great deal of false precision presumed out there. Because we have super res radar data or the graphics are so impressive, people assume that it is ground truth. How will an app tell you it's raining on a street corner, let alone a neighborhood or town. We've already seen the problems of assuming that a two decimal place cutoff with operational systems can lead to with things like pathcast.

[vortmax112]

I think the truth lies in the middle when it comes to the idea of cutting offices. I agree that you need offices spread around the country not just for forecasting and warnings but for outreach and spotter training and things like that. But do you really need this many? I think we need an average of about 1 per state ; so about 50. Bigger states like CA would obviously have more while New England may only have 2 offices for the 6 states in an arrangement like that. In an arrangement like that with less offices I think you'd want more staff per office than there is currently though.

[bluewave]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46430601

It's good to see that this is starting to get some national attention in the media now.

[BillB]

BillB, on 15 February 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

One trouble with merging offices...where do you put the extra people? There's barely enough room for the team we already have at our office. My old office in White Lake MI (Detroit) is even smaller. The agency would need to either renovate the current building or move to another (larger) facility. Either option would cost money...and then toss in the cost to move people from the other offices. This would not be a cheap option.

vortmax112, on 18 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

I think the truth lies in the middle when it comes to the idea of cutting offices. I agree that you need offices spread around the country not just for forecasting and warnings but for outreach and spotter training and things like that. But do you really need this many? I think we need an average of about 1 per state ; so about 50. Bigger states like CA would obviously have more while New England may only have 2 offices for the 6 states in an arrangement like that. In an arrangement like that with less offices I think you'd want more staff per office than there is currently though.

The problem, as noted earlier, is that the current offices (certainly the ones I've been in) are not large enough for any substantial increase in staff (3 to 4 maybe, but not 8-10). Addded forecast/warning responsibility would require extra workstations; just covering the area we have, our workstation usage is maxed out during significant weather. That means expanding the current buildings or moving to a new one. Many of these buildings were built by the goverment just 15-20 years ago, a long time to the younger folks here but rather short usage time overall. And the government will have to pay for moving people from the proposed closed offices to the open ones.

All of this means $$$$ which are in tight supply as it is.

[WidreMann]

BillB, on 18 February 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

The problem, as noted earlier, is that the current offices (certainly the ones I've been in) are not large enough for any substantial increase in staff (3 to 4 maybe, but not 8-10). Addded forecast/warning responsibility would require extra workstations; just covering the area we have, our workstation usage is maxed out during significant weather. That means expanding the current buildings or moving to a new one. Many of these buildings were built by the goverment just 15-20 years ago, a long time to the younger folks here but rather short usage time overall. And the government will have to pay for moving people from the proposed closed offices to the open ones.

All of this means $$$$ which are in tight supply as it is.

Money wouldn't be in tight supply if people weren't so against the apparently insane idea that the power-holding classes in a society should have to pay anything to support the well-being of the country.

[Shsg Falls]

blue sky, on 17 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

My position is the NWS should supply data and forcast. I do not see the cost benifits of the other things they do.

Local officies were created when technology was not advanced. Now..in great part.. thanks to NWS, we have technology that eliminates the need for all these local officies.

The way we are moving there will be apps that will be giving you forecasts 30 seconds ahead of time.

Hey it's raining at 16th and market and its heading your way!

Speaking from experience as a end-user of NWS aviation data, their products are essential for efficient and safe operations of thousands of aircraft daily. In fact, the legality of flight depends upon numbers published in METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs and winds aloft (can I begin the approach, do I have enough fuel for this flight, will the crosswind be too strong, will I need one alternative airport for arrival, or two alternate airports?, etc.). None of these questions could even be answered without NWS forecasts. I can't imagine the financial benefit the NWS gives to corporate aviation and airlines, let alone the cost savings of safety (if there is even a way to put a dollar amount on life). Literally, it must be in the billions of dollars. NWS investment is probably one of the best investments this country has made. Far better than bailing out banks or supporting the military-industrial complex (in my opinion, only).

With that said, there are companies that are successful in providing aviation related weather data from a centralized location. Universal Weather & Aviation at Houston-Hobby comes to mind. The company I work for has dispatchers and meteorologists at one-location in the country and they quickly learn the quirks of the weather in certain places even though they may be thousands of miles away. A lot of aviation forecasts, like area forecasts, convective sigmets, AIRMETs and winds aloft data all come from Kansas City, MO.

I personally believe that numerical modeling, ensemble forecasting and grids have come such a long way in the last 20 years that forecasters are going to be fighting for their careers as the future progresses. I thought I read a paper that indicated ensemble MOS output can produce a similar result to a human forecaster most of the time*.

Of course technology isn't good enough to remove the human all together, but unfortunately for humans technology gets better with time. Can TAFs be produced from a centralized location? I'm thinking they probably can. Can they be produced in a semi-automated fashion, or even totally automated fashion during periods of tranquil weather? I'm thinking they can too.

Similar to the NWS modernization over a decade ago, WSOs closed down at airports as technology allowed pilots to get weather information via computer. Flight Service Stations were consolidated and privatized, at first people were up in arms, but technology has greatly reduced the need of the human disseminating weather information. XM and in-flight WIFI makes the human irrelevant for disseminating weather information.

I believe consolidation and reductions are the future, for better or worse. That iPod in our pockets is a double edged sword. It is very ironic that Ted Kaczynski had a few valid points, we are slowly becoming slaves to technology and computers which in turn will make most of us irrelevant.

[isohume]

Shsg Falls, on 18 February 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

I thought I read a paper that indicated ensemble MOS output can produce a similar result to a human forecaster most of the time*.

MOS is by far a horrible predictor of cigs and vsbys. The NWS consistently beats MOS in that regard. Wrt the public fcst...I'd like to see it go away. We don't need to be "competing" with private firms and the media, even though we're not. End the general AFD, but keep the aviation and fire AFDs for our specific customers. The need for continued AFD support to the media is outdated with sources like NWSChat available now. There are no GPRA goals for the public fcst anyway and this issue should be revisited by HQ. We could free up resources and become more efficient, lower staffing and concentrate on what really matters...saving lives and protecting property.

[Cory]

I wish some of you could stand off to the side in a WFO and watch what it's like during a severe weather outbreak or big winter storm. People want to apply seemingly simple fixes to something they don't understand.

[isohume]

Cory, on 18 February 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I wish some of you could stand off to the side in a WFO and watch what it's like during a severe weather outbreak or big winter storm. People want to apply seemingly simple fixes to something they don't understand.

That.

[messenger]

BillB, on 18 February 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

The problem, as noted earlier, is that the current offices (certainly the ones I've been in) are not large enough for any substantial increase in staff (3 to 4 maybe, but not 8-10). Addded forecast/warning responsibility would require extra workstations; just covering the area we have, our workstation usage is maxed out during significant weather. That means expanding the current buildings or moving to a new one. Many of these buildings were built by the goverment just 15-20 years ago, a long time to the younger folks here but rather short usage time overall. And the government will have to pay for moving people from the proposed closed offices to the open ones.

All of this means $$$$ which are in tight supply as it is.

Sadly Bill that won't stop them from making the cuts. Quite often the idiots in power will do things that cost us more money as your logic here clearly demonstrates. It's not like we can just move more people to each place, there's simply no room.

[Rainshadow]

isohume, on 18 February 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

MOS is by far a horrible predictor of cigs and vsbys. The NWS consistently beats MOS in that regard. Wrt the public fcst...I'd like to see it go away. We don't need to be "competing" with private firms and the media, even though we're not. End the general AFD, but keep the aviation and fire AFDs for our specific customers. The need for continued AFD support to the media is outdated with sources like NWSChat available now. There are no GPRA goals for the public fcst anyway and this issue should be revisited by HQ. We could free up resources and become more efficient, lower staffing and concentrate on what really matters...saving lives and protecting property.

I was just looking at the GFS and NAM MOS verification stats a couple of weeks ago for the first quarter of this fiscal year. Their first six hour forecasts FAR for ifr conditions at our taf sites was about 70%.

[isohume]

Rainshadow, on 18 February 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I was just looking at the GFS and NAM MOS verification stats a couple of weeks ago for the first quarter of this fiscal year. Their first six hour forecasts FAR for ifr conditions at our taf sites was about 70%.

Yeah MOS can handle the first TAF period decently as it should. Our staff still beats MOS regularly wrt to IFR during that time tho. Out in time, in the planning stage (where guidance is needed the most), is when MOS fails pretty bad, but our TAF's aren't much better really.

[BillB]

Rainshadow, on 18 February 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I was just looking at the GFS and NAM MOS verification stats a couple of weeks ago for the first quarter of this fiscal year. Their first six hour forecasts FAR for ifr conditions at our taf sites was about 70%.

isohume, on 18 February 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yeah MOS can handle the first TAF period decently as it should. Our staff still beats MOS regularly wrt to IFR during that time tho. Out in time, in the planning stage (where guidance is needed the most), is when MOS fails pretty bad, but our TAF's aren't much better really.

In the initial 6 hours up here, MOS ususally has a good POD that is better than the human POD. However, the MOS FAR for that first 6 hours is miserable. So human CSI comes out better than MOS, most of the time. We find this to be most true in our Connecticut Valley sites (BDL and BAF) where the MOS and model forecasts of IFR are ridiculously overblown.

Clearly, technology still has a long road to travel.

[snowman21]

famartin, on 17 February 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

That's only for legal reasons.

For all intents and purposes, NWS is the custodian. We maintain the equipment, install new sites, close old ones. We also have more say in QC than NCDC (i.e., if NCDC QC's something and we think they did it wrong, our opinion trumps theirs).

I often think we should fold NCDC back into NWS, like it was back in the day.

From an outsider/end user's point of view, there seems to be a big disconnect between NCDC and the NWS. Perhaps this is just my perception. It seems a little redundant to have NWS maintaining a set of records, then the RCCs having their own sets of records, and then the NCDC a different set yet they claim to be the offical source. So who's right? From personal experience, NWS data seems to be the most clean and best maintained. NCDC is rife with errors, though I know they've recently started consolidating data sets and sources of data, so it's to be expected, but it seems once something's in it's there for all time wrong or right. I don't think the WFOs have that much say in it once climate data finds its way to NCDC. There are examples of WFOs trying to clean up historical records unsuccessfully. ORH's snowfall record from the last 15 years or so comes to mind. BOX quickly investigated and amended BDL's October snow total to a much lower number yet some NCDC data sets still show the incorrect total where I suspect it'll outlive me. Speaking of BDL a.k.a. the Hartford Area, NCDC only has data going back to 1920. BOX claims it goes back to 1905 and some how has 15 years of additional data that NCDC does not. Who's right? Does BOX have a secret stash of napkins someone scribbled down highs and lows on for 15 years? Yes, I'm aware that the data actually does exist in ACIS, but why doesn't it join the rest of the historical record at NCDC? With this last set of normals, BDL's annual normal snowfall appears to be wrong, but no one can change it even though it is obvious to us mets that actually live and work here, so we're stuck with it until 2021. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there outside of my own region that others can commiserate with.

What we need: an easier way to fix bad data. I get it. People in Asheville NC can't be everywhere or know when something is not right, but fixing current and historical climate records needs to be easier and more timely. If NWS doesn't have time to focus on it, then leverage the public. We're here, we care, and we're not completely retarded. Secondly consolidate the custodians of the data. The climate record shouldn't be so fractured as to exist at three different locations (NCDC, RCC, NWS) sometimes with different data at each. Pick one of the three to own it and move on. I'd like it to be a centralized national center, rather than regional or a WFO where things may work differently from office to office, but they shouldn't be so isolated as it seems they currently are.

WidreMann, on 18 February 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Money wouldn't be in tight supply if people weren't so against the apparently insane idea that the power-holding classes in a society should have to pay anything to support the well-being of the country.

I don't think this is right. Even if you confiscated every penny of wealth from the 1%'ers or whatever you want to call the insanely rich power holding classes, the U.S. would still be up to its eyeballs in debt, and dollars would still be tight. Then what? The better solution to fix funding issues is cut from somewhere else. The government needs to live within its means like the rest of us. There is government waste all around. From entitlement programs to as another person mentioned the military-industrial complex. If the government really wants to save some bucks you start with the handful of line items that soak up 75% of the budget. Trimming a million here or there from the NWS is akin to me trying to reign in my budget by slashing my monthly $20 haircut. I'm a little biased, so I think NOAA and its agencies shouldn't be touched. They already run a pretty efficient operation and do so much it's hard to even list even if the trolls have no clue what happens beyond a public forecast. The NWS and its employees are really something we can be proud of and are worth our tax dollars. It's hard to find too many other examples of that in our rather large and bloated government.

[WidreMann]

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

From an outsider/end user's point of view, there seems to be a big disconnect between NCDC and the NWS. Perhaps this is just my perception. It seems a little redundant to have NWS maintaining a set of records, then the RCCs having their own sets of records, and then the NCDC a different set yet they claim to be the offical source. So who's right? From personal experience, NWS data seems to be the most clean and best maintained. NCDC is rife with errors, though I know they've recently started consolidating data sets and sources of data, so it's to be expected, but it seems once something's in it's there for all time wrong or right. I don't think the WFOs have that much say in it once climate data finds its way to NCDC. There are examples of WFOs trying to clean up historical records unsuccessfully. ORH's snowfall record from the last 15 years or so comes to mind. BOX quickly investigated and amended BDL's October snow total to a much lower number yet some NCDC data sets still show the incorrect total where I suspect it'll outlive me. Speaking of BDL a.k.a. the Hartford Area, NCDC only has data going back to 1920. BOX claims it goes back to 1905 and some how has 15 years of additional data that NCDC does not. Who's right? Does BOX have a secret stash of napkins someone scribbled down highs and lows on for 15 years? Yes, I'm aware that the data actually does exist in ACIS, but why doesn't it join the rest of the historical record at NCDC? With this last set of normals, BDL's annual normal snowfall appears to be wrong, but no one can change it even though it is obvious to us mets that actually live and work here, so we're stuck with it until 2021. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there outside of my own region that others can commiserate with.

What we need: an easier way to fix bad data. I get it. People in Asheville NC can't be everywhere or know when something is not right, but fixing current and historical climate records needs to be easier and more timely. If NWS doesn't have time to focus on it, then leverage the public. We're here, we care, and we're not completely retarded. Secondly consolidate the custodians of the data. The climate record shouldn't be so fractured as to exist at three different locations (NCDC, RCC, NWS) sometimes with different data at each. Pick one of the three to own it and move on. I'd like it to be a centralized national center, rather than regional or a WFO where things may work differently from office to office, but they shouldn't be so isolated as it seems they currently are.



I don't think this is right. Even if you confiscated every penny of wealth from the 1%'ers or whatever you want to call the insanely rich power holding classes, the U.S. would still be up to its eyeballs in debt, and dollars would still be tight. Then what? The better solution to fix funding issues is cut from somewhere else. The government needs to live within its means like the rest of us. There is government waste all around. From entitlement programs to as another person mentioned the military-industrial complex. If the government really wants to save some bucks you start with the handful of line items that soak up 75% of the budget. Trimming a million here or there from the NWS is akin to me trying to reign in my budget by slashing my monthly $20 haircut. I'm a little biased, so I think NOAA and its agencies shouldn't be touched. They already run a pretty efficient operation and do so much it's hard to even list even if the trolls have no clue what happens beyond a public forecast. The NWS and its employees are really something we can be proud of and are worth our tax dollars. It's hard to find too many other examples of that in our rather large and bloated government.

I don't know why you think it's not right when we essentially agree, except for the fact that even if we do reform medicare and cut some of defense, we'll still need to spend a decent amount of money on public infrastructure and social entitlements (which are, contrary to Republican bull****tery, a good thing for society). Certainly keeping things like the NWS around and fully funded is about the best use of government money I can think of.

[famartin]

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

From an outsider/end user's point of view, there seems to be a big disconnect between NCDC and the NWS. Perhaps this is just my perception. It seems a little redundant to have NWS maintaining a set of records, then the RCCs having their own sets of records, and then the NCDC a different set yet they claim to be the offical source. So who's right? From personal experience, NWS data seems to be the most clean and best maintained. NCDC is rife with errors, though I know they've recently started consolidating data sets and sources of data, so it's to be expected, but it seems once something's in it's there for all time wrong or right.

This is certainly not the case, as I've changed literally thousands of data values in NCDC (adding stuff that was missing, correcting things and having obviously bad values removed). Budget crunches and dataset consolidation on their end seems to have slowed the process considerably in the last year or so, however.

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

I don't think the WFOs have that much say in it once climate data finds its way to NCDC. There are examples of WFOs trying to clean up historical records unsuccessfully. ORH's snowfall record from the last 15 years or so comes to mind.

I can't speak for BOX, but I can say that I have been unaware of any effort to correct things on the NCDC level as far as ORH snowfall goes. On the other hand, I was involved in a successful effort by BOX to fix BOS's snowfall records at the NCDC level.

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

BOX quickly investigated and amended BDL's October snow total to a much lower number yet some NCDC data sets still show the incorrect total where I suspect it'll outlive me.

Which NCDC dataset?

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Speaking of BDL a.k.a. the Hartford Area, NCDC only has data going back to 1920. BOX claims it goes back to 1905 and some how has 15 years of additional data that NCDC does not. Who's right? Does BOX have a secret stash of napkins someone scribbled down highs and lows on for 15 years? Yes, I'm aware that the data actually does exist in ACIS, but why doesn't it join the rest of the historical record at NCDC?

The data in question is likely part of the Climate Record Book project, which thus far has only been included in ACIS. It is supposed to get transferred over to NCDC once complete.

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

With this last set of normals, BDL's annual normal snowfall appears to be wrong, but no one can change it even though it is obvious to us mets that actually live and work here, so we're stuck with it until 2021. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there outside of my own region that others can commiserate with.

There has been an effort to fix many site's snowfall normals which seemed to get "botched" in the most recent release, but again, I am unaware of any effort to correct BDL's. Someone at BOX may know better.

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

What we need: an easier way to fix bad data. I get it. People in Asheville NC can't be everywhere or know when something is not right, but fixing current and historical climate records needs to be easier and more timely. If NWS doesn't have time to focus on it, then leverage the public. We're here, we care, and we're not completely retarded. Secondly consolidate the custodians of the data. The climate record shouldn't be so fractured as to exist at three different locations (NCDC, RCC, NWS) sometimes with different data at each. Pick one of the three to own it and move on. I'd like it to be a centralized national center, rather than regional or a WFO where things may work differently from office to office, but they shouldn't be so isolated as it seems they currently are.

The datasets aren't as fractured as you think, but I do agree that an easier workflow for data fixes is definitely needed.

[OceanStWx]

snowman21, on 18 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Trimming a million here or there from the NWS is akin to me trying to reign in my budget by slashing my monthly $20 haircut.

This is perhaps my biggest problem with the proposed cuts. It a cut for the sake of cutting, it doesn't actually fix a problem. And as many have described, actually creates problems.

[isohume]

snowman21, on 17 February 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Don't bother with blue sky. He's a known NWS hating troll. Any chance he gets he pops in to say why the NWS should be drastically cut back. It's quite repetitive and he/she's not receptive to open discussion. Perhaps blue sky works for one of the private companies that is forced to work out of one central office, and feels everyone else in this business ought to do the same.

I guess you're right. lolz

[Rainshadow]

isohume, on 19 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I guess you're right. lolz

Yeah Snowman21 is right, it looks as if he/she just cuts and pastes the same "talking points" bullets every time this discussion comes up. Well at least the AFOS bullet was removed.

[blue sky]

Shsg Falls, on 18 February 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Speaking from experience as a end-user of NWS aviation data, their products are essential for efficient and safe operations of thousands of aircraft daily. In fact, the legality of flight depends upon numbers published in METARs, TAFs, SIGMETs and winds aloft (can I begin the approach, do I have enough fuel for this flight, will the crosswind be too strong, will I need one alternative airport for arrival, or two alternate airports?, etc.). None of these questions could even be answered without NWS forecasts. I can't imagine the financial benefit the NWS gives to corporate aviation and airlines, let alone the cost savings of safety (if there is even a way to put a dollar amount on life). Literally, it must be in the billions of dollars. NWS investment is probably one of the best investments this country has made. Far better than bailing out banks or supporting the military-industrial complex (in my opinion, only).

With that said, there are companies that are successful in providing aviation related weather data from a centralized location. Universal Weather & Aviation at Houston-Hobby comes to mind. The company I work for has dispatchers and meteorologists at one-location in the country and they quickly learn the quirks of the weather in certain places even though they may be thousands of miles away. A lot of aviation forecasts, like area forecasts, convective sigmets, AIRMETs and winds aloft data all come from Kansas City, MO.

I personally believe that numerical modeling, ensemble forecasting and grids have come such a long way in the last 20 years that forecasters are going to be fighting for their careers as the future progresses. I thought I read a paper that indicated ensemble MOS output can produce a similar result to a human forecaster most of the time*.

Of course technology isn't good enough to remove the human all together, but unfortunately for humans technology gets better with time. Can TAFs be produced from a centralized location? I'm thinking they probably can. Can they be produced in a semi-automated fashion, or even totally automated fashion during periods of tranquil weather? I'm thinking they can too.

Similar to the NWS modernization over a decade ago, WSOs closed down at airports as technology allowed pilots to get weather information via computer. Flight Service Stations were consolidated and privatized, at first people were up in arms, but technology has greatly reduced the need of the human disseminating weather information. XM and in-flight WIFI makes the human irrelevant for disseminating weather information.
, for better or worse. That iPod in our pockets is a double edged sword. It is very ironic that Ted Kaczynski had a few valid points, we are slowly becoming slaves to technology and computers which in turn will make most of us irrelevant.

"I believe consolidation and reductions are the future." Me too. The fact that I have this opinion and inject it into discussions.... I do not start, offends, some posters.

Information technology is advancing at an amazing rate. We have 122 forecasting officies. Do we need 122 officies? Like private businesses... can't some forecasters work from home? Maybe we should invest in bandwith..not buildings. Technology..not bureacracy.

Some of the responses here are interesting. Others are from the union playbook where you can't cut a job.

I support a government weather service.

Some poster said I hate the NWS. Provide links for that or STFU.

[isohume]

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Some poster said I hate the NWS. Provide links for that or STFU.

I'm just waiting for your cost/benefit ratio breakdown. I could care less what you think of the NWS.

[MGorse]

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

"I believe consolidation and reductions are the future." Me too. The fact that I have this opinion and inject it into discussions.... I do not start, offends, some posters.

Information technology is advancing at an amazing rate. We have 122 forecasting officies. Do we need 122 officies? Like private businesses... can't some forecasters work from home? Maybe we should invest in bandwith..not buildings. Technology..not bureacracy.

Some of the responses here are interesting. Others are from the union playbook where you can't cut a job.

I support a government weather service.

Some poster said I hate the NWS. Provide links for that or STFU.

What private weather businesses have forecasters working from home? I am sure NWS forecasters would love to have an entire AWIPS workstation in their living room.

[blue sky]

isohume, on 19 February 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

I'm just waiting for your cost/benefit ratio breakdown. I could care less what you think of the NWS.

If the weather service wants to give a contract to do that....Fine.

Let's reverse the question...The current structure of the NWS can not be improved?

[isohume]

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

If the weather service wants to give a contract to do that....Fine.

Let's reverse the question...The current structure of the NWS can not be improved?

Nice spin.

[blue sky]

MGorse, on 19 February 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

What private weather businesses have forecasters working from home? I am sure NWS forecasters would love to have an entire AWIPS workstation in their living room.

I am not here supporting private weathe forcasters.

Weather forcasting is information. Why not have AN entire AWIPS workstation at home? Get rid of the Bosses!

[isohume]

MGorse, on 19 February 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

What private weather businesses have forecasters working from home? I am sure NWS forecasters would love to have an entire AWIPS workstation in their living room.

Ha really...imagine the security issues as well.

[blue sky]

isohume, on 19 February 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Nice spin.

This is a discusion about improving the cost effectiveness of the NWS. Any ideas?

[blue sky]

isohume, on 19 February 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Ha really...imagine the security issues as well.

?

[blue sky]

isohume, on 19 February 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Ha really...imagine the security issues as well.

What security issues?

[MGorse]

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I am not here supporting private weathe forcasters.

Weather forcasting is information. Why not have AN entire AWIPS workstation at home? Get rid of the Bosses!

Well, earlier you posted this:

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Like private businesses... can't some forecasters work from home?

I thought you might have some insight from the private sector side.

Having an entire AWIPS workstation at home would be tough, not to mention the security issues.

[isohume]

blue sky, on 19 February 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

This is a discusion about improving the cost effectiveness of the NWS. Any ideas?

No it's a discussion about the new proposed NWS budget and the possible IT loss issue.

I'm curious about your ideas tho, specifically I'd like to see your data concerning the cost/benefit ratio of NWS non-forecasting programs.