Re: This is embarrassing to the NWS...

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, David Wojtowicz wrote:

>
> Those of us in the US academic community are quite blessed at the wealth
> of data delivered to our doorsteps for practically no cost to us at all,
> through the efforts of Unidata and the cooperation of the NWS. The
> addition of NNEXRAD will be another great benefit.  Where else in the
> world does such a dense network of radars with unprecedented
> accessiblility of the data exist?

This is true. And...

> Keep in mind that in many countries few people if anyone has access to
> internal data outside that country's equivalent of NWS. This is in spite
> of that fact that they pay even more taxes than we do in support of
> producing that data.

England comes to mind immediately.

> Sure, we're all anxious to get the data, but flaming the NWS is quite
> counter-productive.  It will only serve to discourage them from reaching
> out to our community with ready access to their data sources.  They don't
> want to have to put up with all the whining and griping.  This was one of
> the main reasons they entered into the initial NIDS contracts with the
> vendors in the first place.  They did not want the hassles of dealing
> directly with outside end users of the data.   It is a very thankless
> business to be in.

True.

> It'd be different if we were paying big bucks for the data...then the
> provider has an obligation to make sure it nearly always works as promised
> and the customer has a right to gripe when it doesn't.  But we're not
> paying anything.  (aside from the tiny percentage of our taxes that go
> into the program... and it is a very tiny percentage compared to the gobs
> of other things our taxes go into that we get no direct benefit from in
> return)
See below.

> Also, the data distributed through Unidata is primarily intended for
> research, educational and other acedemic use rather than for primarily
> operation use.  It occurred to me that one of the most vocal people in our
> community concerning NWS is using for purely operational use.  If it is
> that critical, they should be paying for the data through a vendor to
> ensure access and reliability.

Definitely not solely, and yes, we do pay external vendors outside of
the UNIDATA program for access and reliability. But after thinking about
that this weekend, you are correct. I repent! And I do reiterate that,
although, the NWS does make boo-boos, I am very happy overall with
NOAAport. I got frustrated because it pains me to see one of the best run
government organizations by far (sure, it has problems, but it still is
awesome), make a mistake like that. But, I went way overboard in my
comments. I'll learn from that and move on.

*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste                                                     ********
Internet: gilbert@xxxxxxx    (My opinions only!)                     ******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University                      ****
E-mail: sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                                 ***
web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu                                      **
Work phone: 815-753-5492                                                *
*******************************************************************************


  • 2001 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the ldm-users archives: