5 ms·

More like declaring the real plan of setting up one org that needs to be privatized. There have been real attempts at privatization of weather services in the

by lithos 2y ago

More like declaring the real plan of setting up one org that needs to be privatized. There have been real attempts at privatization of weather services in the US, despite the fact that our current system costs pennies a day per person (whether it's used for weather apps, or safe flying/sailing).

momoschili 2y ago
unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. The gold standard for western weather prediction is the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and that is a collaboration between multiple government agencies.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  The "lets privatize essential parts of the government" folks do not care about precedent, or what is a good idea. They are driven by ideology and self dealing.
  - momoschili 2y ago
    even Cliff himself (somewhat right leaning in today's American political environment) did not go so far in his blog. Cliff often speaks very highly of the European weather forecasts, and in his blog post it seems pretty clear that he is using it as the model for most of the suggestions.
    - throwway120385 2y ago
      The problem is that his well-meaning statements are going to be used as ammo to privatize NOAA, much like someone's well-meaning statements were used to create turmoil in Springfield, Missouri.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Ohio?
        tzs 2y ago
        Nobody is sure what state Springfield is in.
        throwway120385 2y ago
        It's possible it's in a superposition of states. Like if someone stupidly misremembered which Springfield, then it would be in many states at once until observed.
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      Cliff Mass has this kind of weird position on climate change where here fully agrees that it is real and a serious concern, while simultaneously questioning the extent to which it is human-caused and disputing specific weather events as the negative effects of climate change.
      - influx 2y ago
        I'm curious about where we draw the line on questioning scientific consensus. Take Cliff Mass - he's a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UW whose research focuses on weather modeling, climate systems, and atmospheric dynamics. When someone with his expertise raises questions about climate science conclusions, should we approach this differently than when non-experts do so? This raises an interesting question about the role of expertise and scientific discourse: Is there a meaningful distinction between how we treat challenges to consensus from qualified researchers in the field versus those from outside it? Or should acceptance of consensus apply equally regardless of one's credentials?
        momoschili 2y ago
        As an imperfect analogy, Stephen Wolfram is a fairly successful theoretical physicist by academic standards with considerable expertise, yet his theories on fundamental physics and its interpretations are considered fringe in the physics community because he most of what he spins is untestable conjecture. Individuals who disagree with the scientific consensus aren't always wrong, but most of the time they are. What separates these people is the amount of evidence they can bring to the table.
        lispisok 2y ago
        He doesnt challenge scientific consensus. What he does challenge is people making any claim they want then adding "because climate change" at the end which has become a problem. One side will deny climate change and the other side starting taking any claim at face value as long as you say "because climate change"
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. When has something being a bad idea or never having been tried stopped political apparatchik's from trying, especially given past appointee's opinions: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-recap-national-weather-service https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-... * https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonight/ https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonig... See also Project 2025: > The document describes NOAA as a primary component "of the climate change alarm industry" and said it "should be broken up and downsized." […] > Project 2025 would not outright end the National Weather Service. It says the agency "should focus on its data-gathering services," and "should fully commercialize its forecasting operations." > It said that "commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high quality research and weather data." Investing in commercial partners will increase competition, Project 2025 said. * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-mosk...
jordanb 2y ago
Yeah that was my take too considering most of his argument is "spin it out of NOAA" and consolidate. The whole thing seems like a standard MBA reorg plan. Also I don't think his data supports his argument. He shows, for instance, that GFS and ECMWF track each other in his own quality metric, that modern GFS is basically the same quality as ECMWF was in 2012, and that they are slowly converging. This is hardly a "decline." The reason why ECMWF and GFS track eachother is that they're using the same data! The dominant limit on how good weather prediction can be is the amount and quality of the initial state data. ECMWF is proof that GFS could improve still, but let's be real: it's very good and unlike ECMWF it is free. That, I think, is the real problem this guy has. The Accuweather CEO (who is a Trump supporter) and a lot of the private meteorology industry want NOAA to get out of the business of weather forecasting so that they can charge people for lifesaving information. They pump ECMWF mostly because it's not free. Even the data showing it is superior is often somewhat cherry picked. For instance, it missed Hurricane Milton for quite a while while GFS was predicting its development and ultimate path pretty accurately.
- plantain 2y ago
  ECMWF is working towards being free/open-data by 2026.

by lithos 2y ago

momoschili 2y ago

unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. The gold standard for western weather prediction is the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and that is a collaboration between multiple government agencies.

mrguyorama 2y ago
The "lets privatize essential parts of the government" folks do not care about precedent, or what is a good idea. They are driven by ideology and self dealing.
- momoschili 2y ago
  even Cliff himself (somewhat right leaning in today's American political environment) did not go so far in his blog. Cliff often speaks very highly of the European weather forecasts, and in his blog post it seems pretty clear that he is using it as the model for most of the suggestions.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    The problem is that his well-meaning statements are going to be used as ammo to privatize NOAA, much like someone's well-meaning statements were used to create turmoil in Springfield, Missouri.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Ohio?
      - tzs 2y ago
        Nobody is sure what state Springfield is in.
        throwway120385 2y ago
        It's possible it's in a superposition of states. Like if someone stupidly misremembered which Springfield, then it would be in many states at once until observed.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    Cliff Mass has this kind of weird position on climate change where here fully agrees that it is real and a serious concern, while simultaneously questioning the extent to which it is human-caused and disputing specific weather events as the negative effects of climate change.
    - influx 2y ago
      I'm curious about where we draw the line on questioning scientific consensus. Take Cliff Mass - he's a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at UW whose research focuses on weather modeling, climate systems, and atmospheric dynamics. When someone with his expertise raises questions about climate science conclusions, should we approach this differently than when non-experts do so? This raises an interesting question about the role of expertise and scientific discourse: Is there a meaningful distinction between how we treat challenges to consensus from qualified researchers in the field versus those from outside it? Or should acceptance of consensus apply equally regardless of one's credentials?
      - momoschili 2y ago
        As an imperfect analogy, Stephen Wolfram is a fairly successful theoretical physicist by academic standards with considerable expertise, yet his theories on fundamental physics and its interpretations are considered fringe in the physics community because he most of what he spins is untestable conjecture. Individuals who disagree with the scientific consensus aren't always wrong, but most of the time they are. What separates these people is the amount of evidence they can bring to the table.
      - lispisok 2y ago
        He doesnt challenge scientific consensus. What he does challenge is people making any claim they want then adding "because climate change" at the end which has become a problem. One side will deny climate change and the other side starting taking any claim at face value as long as you say "because climate change"
throw0101d 2y ago
> unlikely that there is good precedent for a private weather organization. When has something being a bad idea or never having been tried stopped political apparatchik's from trying, especially given past appointee's opinions: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGn9T37eR8 * https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11110660/ * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-recap-national-weather-service https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/oct/14/john-oliver-... * https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonight/ https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonig... See also Project 2025: > The document describes NOAA as a primary component "of the climate change alarm industry" and said it "should be broken up and downsized." […] > Project 2025 would not outright end the National Weather Service. It says the agency "should focus on its data-gathering services," and "should fully commercialize its forecasting operations." > It said that "commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high quality research and weather data." Investing in commercial partners will increase competition, Project 2025 said. * https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-mosk...

jordanb 2y ago

Yeah that was my take too considering most of his argument is "spin it out of NOAA" and consolidate. The whole thing seems like a standard MBA reorg plan. Also I don't think his data supports his argument. He shows, for instance, that GFS and ECMWF track each other in his own quality metric, that modern GFS is basically the same quality as ECMWF was in 2012, and that they are slowly converging. This is hardly a "decline." The reason why ECMWF and GFS track eachother is that they're using the same data! The dominant limit on how good weather prediction can be is the amount and quality of the initial state data. ECMWF is proof that GFS could improve still, but let's be real: it's very good and unlike ECMWF it is free. That, I think, is the real problem this guy has. The Accuweather CEO (who is a Trump supporter) and a lot of the private meteorology industry want NOAA to get out of the business of weather forecasting so that they can charge people for lifesaving information. They pump ECMWF mostly because it's not free. Even the data showing it is superior is often somewhat cherry picked. For instance, it missed Hurricane Milton for quite a while while GFS was predicting its development and ultimate path pretty accurately.

plantain 2y ago
ECMWF is working towards being free/open-data by 2026.