Google         

News Weather Home ] Up ] Asia weather ] Tsunami ] Weather Watcher ] amazon ] National Weather Service ] abc news weather ] new orleans weather ] NOAAA ] China Is Hit by 7.5 Magnitude Earthquake Near Chengdu | Compost Twin

noaa weather forecast

Does Government Weather Forecasting Endanger Lives?

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 By John Lott found at foxnews.com

As Hurricane Dean roars through the Gulf of Mexico, it reminds everyone how dangerous the weather can be. But it should also remind everyone how poorly the National Hurricane Center has been at predicting storms.

Despite dire predictions from the National Hurricane Center, no hurricanes hit the U.S. last year. This year they predicted as many as 10 hurricanes. Fortunately, Dean will most likely miss us.

All this raises a question: Is the government’s free weather prediction service so bad that it is worth paying for private companies to predict the weather?

With all the blame still going around about Hurricane Katrina’s devastation, one fact has missed getting much attention: private weather forecasting companies predicted the threat to New Orleans well before the National Weather Service. In fact, AccuWeather issued a forecast that the hurricane would hit New Orleans 12 hours earlier than the government service.

This is hardly something new. Private companies with a lot at stake would often rather pay for private forecasts than rely on the “free” forecasts from the government. Hugh Connett, the president of Bridgeline, a gas pipeline company in Louisiana, claims that the government’s hurricane forecasts are too imprecise. He says that private companies such as AccuWeather do it better, because they give more accurate predictions and provide hour-by-hour forecasts of a storm’s path.

His position is not ideological – Connett’s firm monitors the past accuracy of hurricane forecasters to make sure paying extra for the private service is worth it.

It is not just for hurricanes that private forecasting comes out on top. A new study by Forecast Watch, a company that keeps track of past forecasts, found that from Oct. 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, the government’s National Weather Service did very poorly in predicting the probability of rain or snow. Comparing the National Weather Service to The Weather Channel, CustomWeather, and DTN Meteorlogix, Forecast Watch found that the government’s next-day forecast had a 21 percent greater error rate between predicted probability of precipitation and the rate that precipitation actually occurred.

In looking at predicting snow fall from December 2006 through February 2007, the National Weather Service’s average error was 24 percent greater.

“All private forecasting companies did much better than the National Weather Service,” the report concludes.

The government doesn’t do any better with forecasting temperature. For the largest 50 cities in the U.S. over the last year, ForecastAdvisor.com ranks the National Weather Service’s overall predictions for high and low temperatures as well as precipitation as dead last among the six weather forecasting services they examined.

It has only been in the last several years that comparisons between government and private weather companies have been possible, as the National Weather Service has made its data more readily available. But none of this should be very surprising. Incentives matter. If the private companies don’t do a good job, they go out of business. Government agencies never even shrink.

Unfortunately, these aren’t the only problems with the National Weather Service. The service has been accused in the past of withholding government aircraft reconnaissance of hurricanes for up to 11 hours before releasing the information to private companies or the public.

A more serious problem is that the National Weather Service gives away its services for free. In 2004, the National Weather Service began shelving a 1991 policy that had barred the weather agency from offering services that private industry could provide. The Weather Service also now offers much of its data on the internet for free. With an $882 million budget for 2007, the National Weather Service is certainly not free and it can afford to give away a lot of services that its private competitors can’t.

There was a good reason for this 1991 ban on competition. During the 1980s, private meteorology services saw a chance to make money by providing television stations with specialized forecasts that the National Weather Service hadn’t been offering. But soon after the private companies began providing this service, the National Weather Service started giving stations the same specialized forecasts for free, driving the private forecasting companies out of the business of providing these forecasts. That is a sure way to discourage future innovation. Private forecasters are much more established now, but the government giving away free services still hurts them.

In the case of anything other than government, people would instantly call this behavior what it is: predation. But, ironically, government enterprises represent a much bigger predatory threat than private companies. It is rare for private firms to destroy competitors by selling their products below the cost of production because doing so is very expensive. And new competitors can always enter the market in the future. But it is easy for the government to sell below cost. The Weather Service increases its clout and turf by giving services away for free while passing the bill on to taxpayers.

The new data comparing the National Weather Service and its private competitors should give us pause.

Scaling back the National Weather Service isn’t just about accurately predicting tomorrow’s high temperature. People’s lives and livelihoods are at stake in getting this right. With a budget of almost a billion dollars, this may be one place where cutting back on government will save both money and lives.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this article is based, and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Comments about Noaa weather forecast

Political Weather Forecast Science: Freedomology

by Steve Scolnik found at capitalweather.com Tuesday, August 21, 2007

We don't normally cite Faux News here at the Update, but the opinion piece above, "Does Government Weather Forecasting Endanger Lives?" is worth noting, if only for the point that wingnuttery regarding privatization of weather services did not disappear with the resounding defeat of Sen. Santorum at the polls last year. Having fled civil service after only 5 years at NOAA, the Update is no great fan of bureaucracy, but only the most ideologically extreme would claim that government has no role in public safety. This was recognized from the earliest days of the republic; there's a good reason why an immediate ancestor of today's NOAA, the Coast Survey, was founded exactly 200 years ago. It's a fact that the advances in numerical weather prediction during the last 50 years that have made today's forecast accuracy possible have all been government-funded, either directly at NOAA or through support of university research. Private industry could not, and would not, have made the huge investment necessary to produce these results.

The author of the article, John Lott, is an economist. I think we know how accurate their models have been. Like Allan Sloan in today's WaPo, I'm a strong advocate of free markets (after all, they made it possible for me to do this as a public service), but apparently Mr. Lott sees no hypocrisy in being paid by tax dollars as an employee of the University of Maryland.

Well, politics aside, we don't KNOW if private weather forecasting firms could actually do a better job or not saving lives.

Case in point.....by law, ONLY the NWS can issue official severe weather watches and local warnings. Companies like Accuweather and the Weather Channel, while free to offer their own severe outlook areas each day, can legally only broadcast NWS local warnings. Maybe.....just MAYBE...if these companies werre allowed to compwete with NWS is the severe-weather warning department, then we would have a better idea of how they would do.

Gravatar 1)The piece that I wrote dealt with the accuracy of the forecasts. For the more important systematic data, I cited two sources. If you have problem with them, I would be most interested in hearing your comments.

2) I don't understand why private companies wouldn't have made investments in weather forecasting any less than they do for any other type of business. There is a lot of money at stake in everything from farming to transportation to lots and lots of other activities that depend a lot on accurate weather information.

3) I don't mind if you privatize any of the public universities that I have held positions at.

4) Thanks for reading the piece.

Thousands of meteorologists utilize data produced by the National Weather Service annually, including the professors at the University of Maryland. Thousands more amateur forecasters and weather enthusiasts scrutinize their products as well. Wouldn't there be an outcry from the scientific community in general if there was gross negligence by the NWS? No offense, but you're an economist (or computer scientist, according to the faculty directory search at UMCP). I don't think you're in a position to critique the ability of the NWS to forecast accurately.

Furthermore, anyone can fund a study challenging the validity of a consensus. Just look at the anti-global warming lobby. Could you cite a peer-reviewed journal article which confirms your claims that NWS incompetence is killing people left and right?

As for the privatization of weather forecasting, I hope I won't have to pay $14.99 a month to receive Tornado Warnings. I wonder who will be criticized then?

Gravatar Also, if this is indeed the author of that article (people have been impersonated before), I would encourage you to read the storm you've stirred up at the Eastern US Weather Forum:
easternuswx.com

Prof. Lott: Thanks for visiting CapitalWeather.com and for your comment. By all accounts, the National Hurricane Center did an outstanding job with Katrina and was commended by Congress for its efforts. I don't think you got it right with your assertion AccuWeather had a better forecast. The graphic shown on this site doesn't seem to support your claim: stormeyes.org And this graphic is consistent with my recollection.

With respect to seasonal hurricane forecasting -- which is very difficult -- while the National Weather Service was way off last year-- AccuWeather's forecast was just as bad, if not worse.

On the Forecast Watch study, assuming its results are right, 9 months still isn't a long time, and insufficient to draw conclusions from in my opinion.

I have no particular allegiance to either AccuWeather or NWS. We use information from both at CapitalWeather.com. It's my impression they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

At the end of the day, I think both the private and public sector play very important and complimentary roles in the weather and climate enterprise.
Both have areas in which they could improve but both are demonstrably successful and provide value while saving lives.

Some required reading on Mr. Lott. Don't expect an honest debate.

Dear JTF;

No one was accusing anyone of gross negligence. There is a big difference between gross negligence and not having the same incentive to do a good job as you have when your organization risks going out of business.

As to you next post, here are links to my sources:
johnrlott.tripod.com

On the point that I am supposedly confusing Accuweather and NOAA on huricanne forecasts:
noaanews.noaa.gov

Dear Jason:

If you want another detailed comparison besides Forecast Watch, please point to it. The www.ForecastAdvisor.com  covers a longer period of time. Both of these are daily data so you at least have a significant number of observations.

Dear Steve:

I agree with your basic point. That in fact is why the meat of the discussion is based on discussing the Forecast Watch and Forecast Advisor  information. They provide much more systematic data and are not based upon a few anecdotal stories.

Gravatar In his opinion piece, Dr. Lott states, "Despite dire predictions from the National Hurricane Center, no hurricanes hit the U.S. last year. This year they are again predicting as many as 10 hurricanes, up to five of them hitting the U.S."

There is a problem with this. While the National Hurricane Center issues seasonal forecasts, its seasonal forecasts do not predict landfalls or hits. They only cover the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes.

 
Find the weather in any city, state, ZIP code or country

 

 

Other pages News Weather Home
Up
noaa radios
noaa weather forecast

Print

Click for current weather warnings from NOAA's National Weather Service

Click for Current
Weather Warnings

news weather site map

sitemap.xml


  If you enjoy this page, save and share the article:

news weather site map

Weather predictions or not? Most fail to materialise

BBC weather UK New Barkfly and other insect species arrives in UK due to hot weather. more BBC weather

Weather TAGS :
harvest moon  india weather discusses widgets drough weather forecasts

Weather books :
The Weather Makers


-------------------------
sites roll: 

Weather Underground >> 
National Weather Service >> 
Intellicast >> 
news marketing 
fresh let  
US & World weather
secret marketing links
real estate news
photo news
african business
diamonds news

What Next ?    
Have some comment or ideas to share, want to advertise? contact David Norden
Previous ] News Weather Home ] Up ]