Slashdot Mirror

Once the NPOESS constellation of weather and climate satellites are launched (starting in 2008), anyone with a field terminal and a one-meter dish can listen in to weather data. Furthermore, anyone can take the data and format it in JPG or GIF and post it to a website, RSS feed, or what-have-you.

Don't have the cash to buy a field terminal? That's okay, you should be able to build your own from a relatively powerful Linux box, a COTS receiver, and a one-or-two-meter dish. You can FOIA the algorithms and write an open source client.

That didn't seem to work, but I've been relying on this for years.

I don't know about the rest of this country, but in Florida, from June through November, this site becomes my browser homepage. Along with the satellite page, it contains the most consistently useful information regarding tropical activity.

I do not think it is a reasonable idea to pay for access to this required information. This information is a type of 'raw feed'. People can go to the commercial sites for the hyped-up, chicken little, 'we'er all gonna die!' media show.

This smells like another insane party politic trick. Get NOAA to stop publishing, then do away with the NOAA & the NWS. Privatize weather forecasting. All lies, no liability. Gotta love what corporations are doing to politics and our government.

I don't know about the rest of this country, but in Florida, from June through November, this site becomes my browser homepage. Along with the satellite page, it contains the most consistently useful information regarding tropical activity.

I do not think it is a reasonable idea to pay for access to this required information. This information is a type of 'raw feed'. People can go to the commercial sites for the hyped-up, chicken little, 'we'er all gonna die!' media show.

This smells like another insane party politic trick. Get NOAA to stop publishing, then do away with the NOAA & the NWS. Privatize weather forecasting. All lies, no liability. Gotta love what corporations are doing to politics and our government.

-better / more discussions about severe weather, hurricane season
-longer radar loops... more convenient
-more accurate forecasts
-NOAA doesn't do real-time alerts
-Accuweather tends to shy away from the aggravating probability model... (what does "40% chance of X mean?")

That said, I use NOAA info already. I wrote a widget for Konfabulator using that info, and I routinely check a number of sites that are important to me in terms of weather... Severe Weather Prediction Center, National Weather Service, and the Chicago Area homepage to name a few... All that info is useful, but it should be up to the private companies to extend it. Or individual developers like me on my own free time.

When Accuweather starts to demonstrate real figures of loss caused by the government because of what the government does, then I'll reevaluate my position.

-better / more discussions about severe weather, hurricane season
-longer radar loops... more convenient
-more accurate forecasts
-NOAA doesn't do real-time alerts
-Accuweather tends to shy away from the aggravating probability model... (what does "40% chance of X mean?")

That said, I use NOAA info already. I wrote a widget for Konfabulator using that info, and I routinely check a number of sites that are important to me in terms of weather... Severe Weather Prediction Center, National Weather Service, and the Chicago Area homepage to name a few... All that info is useful, but it should be up to the private companies to extend it. Or individual developers like me on my own free time.

When Accuweather starts to demonstrate real figures of loss caused by the government because of what the government does, then I'll reevaluate my position.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/forecasts/NYZ072.php
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/digital/NY072afmwk. htm

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/forecasts/NYZ072.php
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/digital/NY072afmwk. htm

Instead of pushing outward in it's exploration ventures, NASA should push inward and delve deep into Earth's oceans.


But then they would have to rename themselves to NOSA - National Oceanography and Seabed Administration.

Which would annoy the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially the National Geophysical Data Center, who research everything geophysical from the Sun to the Earth's core.

That is the job for NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration).

This is a hard core analogy to try and explain to congress critters just why it is not only short sighted, but incredibly foolish to cut the funding to the Voyager program.

One of the major complaints about the Indian Ocean Tsuami last Christmas holiday was that the technology and even the money was available to set up a warning system throughout the Indian Ocean that would give people living throughout the region as much as several hours advance notice before the Tsuami actually struck.... potentially saving the lives of thousands of people if it had been in place.

Both Voyager space craft are just like weather bouys in the ocean collecting data, but in this case they are in deep space collecting weather data.

The concept of space weather is a relatively new concept, however this is so mainstream that It has become a seperate bureau independent of NASA. Knowledge of space weather has significant economic impact on modern society, where utility grids have to prepare for increased surges in power systems, telecommunications systems need to know when to shut down telecomm sattelites, and perhaps most critical: Manned spacecraft need to have (if possible) advanced warning to know when to get into shielded areas to avoid the effects of a major solar storm. This is a storm of charged particles, and can be predicted using somewhat similar techniques as have already been developed for forecasting rain and snow storms here on the Earth.

By turning off Voyager, it is the equivalent to turning off an ocean bouy in the Pacific ocean, because the million or so dollars needed to service that bouy can't be found. What happens when you record the Tsumai wave the next day and wipes everything out, but it went unmonitored because you shut down the radio recievers that were recieving the bouy data?

Although unlikely, major magnetic storms can also come from extra-solar sources, and the Voyager probes would be in a unique position to be able to record these disturbances well before it would be a problem here on the Earth, giving us several months or even up to a year to prepare for the effects of such a cosmic event. That by itself could justify IMHO the reason to keep Voyager going for the next 10 years alone.

Also, by having the data collected by the Voyager and Pioneer space probes to continue, it will give us additional data points to understand space weather in general as we move out into the rest of the solar system. Right now there are a bunch of questions regarding how dangerous it will be to launch manned spacecraft from the Earth to Mars or even asteroids, and knowing just what the environment is like in space is critical to assess the risks and protection needed to carry out missions like these. This is a very rich source of data that is simply irreplaceable at any price for the next century.

Underwater research is in fact more difficult than space research -- you need a much stronger capsule to survive a deep trip than you do to survive a trip into space, at least if you just consider pressure. The difference between the atmospheric pressure inside a space capsule and outside is generally going to be 1 atmosphere -- basically 14.7 PSI or a little over a thousand grams per square centimeter.

According to the NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the pressure increases at 1 atmosphere per 10 meters. If you go 4000 meters down, that's 400 atmospheres of pressure pushing inward on the outside skin of your submarine. One atmosphere is pushing outward on the inside skin of your sub. That submarine better have a strong skin, or the people inside it are going to end up looking like something you'd spread on toast.

The article I linked above has a great account of what happened during an unmanned test of some diving equipment at 3000 feet -- it's not often that you read a scientific article or story and see the sentence "If I had been in the way, I would have been decapitated."

link for the lazy

If you live in the US, just put your hard-earned tax dollars to work and head to The National Weather Service for your forecasts.

noaa.gov is where I get my weather info.

Then try this. Assuming you're in the US, it's got good data. Sure, not as feature-rich as weather channel's site, but has the info you need.

How does a satelite see atoms? Could you give a cite?

Some satellite-based ozone monitoring instruments:

TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) - NASA

ILAS, ILAS-II (Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer) - NASDA Japan

MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder) - NASA

TOVS (TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder) - NOAA

SBUV, SBUV2 (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer) - NOAA

GOME (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) - ESA

As others have pointed out, other methods of sampling exist, including aircraft, "ozonesondes" and other sorts of ballons, rocket probes, and ground-based instruments such as spectrophotometers or LIDAR.

How does a satelite see atoms? Could you give a cite?

Some satellite-based ozone monitoring instruments:

TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) - NASA

ILAS, ILAS-II (Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer) - NASDA Japan

MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder) - NASA

TOVS (TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder) - NOAA

SBUV, SBUV2 (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer) - NOAA

GOME (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) - ESA

As others have pointed out, other methods of sampling exist, including aircraft, "ozonesondes" and other sorts of ballons, rocket probes, and ground-based instruments such as spectrophotometers or LIDAR.

How does a satelite see atoms? Could you give a cite?

Some satellite-based ozone monitoring instruments:

TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) - NASA

ILAS, ILAS-II (Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer) - NASDA Japan

MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder) - NASA

TOVS (TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder) - NOAA

SBUV, SBUV2 (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer) - NOAA

GOME (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) - ESA

As others have pointed out, other methods of sampling exist, including aircraft, "ozonesondes" and other sorts of ballons, rocket probes, and ground-based instruments such as spectrophotometers or LIDAR.

eg:

"Southern hemispheric mixing ratios of methyl chloroform peaked in 1992 and northern hemisphere mixing ratios peaked a little more than a year earlier (Figure 5.9). The time lag is similar to the known interhemispheric mixing time. The large north to south gradient before 1993 is indicative of very strong northern hemisphere sources." (Prinn et al., 1995)

NOAA.gov

If you'd like to check out the ozone levels for yourself, click on my URL. It will connect you to a computer down the hall from me that will happily graph up data from sites around the US and world.

If there is some group out there looking out for these sort of things, they probably didn't have the means of getting the word out. They were probably derided as a bunch of kooks by the media or any kind of outlet they tried to talk to. Getting information out is hard if you don't have the infrastructure to get people to listen to you.

Here's an example of such a failure. In Hawaii, there is a tsunami monitering center, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, which moniters the west coast of the US, and pretty much all of the pacific basin for tsunami. I'll bet that after the massive seaquake, they knew what was coming. I'll also bet that there was no protocol for who they could contact to pass on this information. While they probably had a system for warning the continental US about dangers approaching the west coast, it doesn't seem like had a contact in the state department who could inform foreign governments about the information they had. With 2-3 hours notice, several thousand lives could have been saved in the affected regions. You can raise the point about not being able to help poor vilages who have no infrastructure and no ability to contact them, and that's a valid point. However, there were still thousands of casualities on resort beaches in tourist cities, places where communication infractructure wasn't a problem. The problem was that you had these group of people in Hawaii with lifesaving information who were likely shouting in the dark trying to get someone to listen to them, which is what likely happened to any watchdog group who may have known about this legislation.

I don't think it was absolute. His statement was, "increasingly," not "entirely" or "all."

A weather prediction. I expect you to want to reply, "But see! That's not weather, that's climate!"

Which is a good time to point out a question that you've chosen to ignore: If what you say is true, then why did RealClimate.org define things the way they did (specifically, weather == "what you observe", climate == "what you expect")? This is not a rhetorical question. Answer it!

If "climate," by RealClimate.org's own admission is "what you expect," then that definition is functionally equivalent to a weather prediction

This sounds like it took an insane amount of coordination. Unfortunately, the weather forecast says partly cloudy tonight and rain the next three nights.

No, it just shows that you know how to use Google.

i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.

I'm gonna have to go with you on this one.


Living in Kentucky also, I'm going to have to have to jump in here and say this has been a friggin' warm winter compared to many in the past. According to NOAA:

"The average temperature in January 2005 was 38.9 F. This was 4.8 F warmer than the 1895-2005 average, the 18th warmest January in 111 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."

More information and pretty pictures available from NOAA's Web site: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/indo20041226/hms_ scott.htm

Oh, and for more information, you might want to read the US Government's reports:

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icefree/

It's here

More tornados, more hurricanes, more droughts and more floods.

More bad weather or more advanced technology to find bad weather? In what time period? You can massage data to prove any point you want.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstat s.html

You could make the conclusion from this data that there are a rise in tornados every year. The thing that I find interesting is the fact that the deaths are decreasing. Why is that? More early warning systems recording tornados?

So is this extreme climate change or more accurate readings due to more advanced technology in place. And if thats the case then you have to question the validity of the old data. Which brings us to now. What do you believe? New data or past data? Predictions are guesses. So far climate predictions haven't been accurate. When the weather man can get the 10 day forcast right on a consistent basis then maybe I will entertain the thought of scientists predicting the weather in the next 10 years.

The problem is that we can't tell yet, everyone else is just guessing.

Why provide an Experimental NDFD XML service?

The National Weather Service is striving to serve societys needs for weather information by evolving its services from a text-based paradigm to one based on making NWS information available quickly, efficiently, and in convenient and understandable forms. The NDFD is one example of this transformation. NDFD XML takes yet another step towards a digital services era by making NDFD data available for computer to computer transfer and processing. NWS customers and partners can then enhance the value of NDFD data through the creation of value added products.

Why provide an Experimental NDFD XML service?

The National Weather Service is striving to serve societys needs for weather information by evolving its services from a text-based paradigm to one based on making NWS information available quickly, efficiently, and in convenient and understandable forms. The NDFD is one example of this transformation. NDFD XML takes yet another step towards a digital services era by making NDFD data available for computer to computer transfer and processing. NWS customers and partners can then enhance the value of NDFD data through the creation of value added products.

There is options available right now for the people that want it. NOAA weather radio. Available in all kinds of portable radios, police scanners, stand alone "weather radios", and even in FRS two way radios. Even Amazon sells 31 products capable of receiving these broadcasts. Basically, you can pick something up at any retail store in the US for under $20 that will receive these broadcasts. I use one every time a storm is identified in my area. As soon as I hear the warnings on television, I grab my police scanner and press the NOAA button. NOAA repeats and updates the emergency condition far more often and identifies very specific areas that should take immediate actions far better then any commercial AM/FM/TV weather team does. They also provide around the clock tidal and water level conditions but that is of no interest to me in my house. Even if you are not camping, it is a good idea to have something capable of receiving these broadcasts just in case.

... is available at http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/.

I prefer this other site with NWS and NOAA data on it.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov

Actually I do understand the computer requirements. It's a lot of data and a lot of bandwidth. That's true.

And as far as the NHC, I'll show you what I'm talking about.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphicsprototypes.shtml

Lastly, the NWS is constantly modifying their site. The colors on the map on the front page of weather.gov were changed, they've introduced gridpoint forecasts, experimental graphical forecasts, and several other things within the last year or two. Some of the offices go farther, such as the Norman, OK office which has an enhanced page displaying information about severe weather in the area. And at times new forecasts and new graphics are added. For example, it hasn't been too long ago, a few years or so, since the SPC started producing a day 3 convective outlook.

I agree too about their issues with servers. You'll get no argument from me there.

By the way, I just used radial velocity images as an example of data that's produced but not distributed. NCEP distributes some data produced by computer models, and it's very useful, but stuff like forecast soundings aren't distributed AFAIK. My original point was there's lots of data they're already not distributing and as someone who's thankful for what they do distribute, I hope the private weather industry doesn't cause some of those products to go offline as well.

What are you talking about? This?

You do understand the computer requirements to provide such a thing at all right?

154 radars X 20 some products a scan X 10 scans an hour = a whole shitload of data. About 500,000 files a day.

The gov't isn't doing enough making this data reliably available via NoaaPort satellite feeds and CRS and FTP, but now they should process all that data, plot it over base maps, and make it available to the public? Just so a few dumbasses in atmospheric science don't have to program? Your perception of reality, and the perception of the reality of all this data, and the value of programmers and sys admins time, is severely warped. Enjoy college.

That used to be correct. You, Private Citizen, have always been free to collect the raw data from the NOAA. The policy the commercial weather firms arranged with the NOAA fourteen years ago was a statement that the NOAA wouldn't compete with the commercial firms, in terms of providing "finished" content.

I think the "competition" you were asking about occurred in 2003 when the NOAA started experimenting with making "point forecasts" available to the public: the weather firms cried foul. The NOAA decided to revisit their policy last year, and they requested public comment. The public outcry was loud and clear: if the NOAA was processing data at public expense, the NOAA was expected to make the processed data available to the public. And, surprisingly enough, it became their new policy despite complaints from the commercial firms. It's called the "Fair Weather Policy".

So, the point forecasts are now available on-line. How has that changed things? Not much. People still turn to the local TV station for weather in the morning, and they tune in to The Weather Channel if they're heading to the beach or the mountains.

I think where the main effect has been felt is in the industrial sector. For example, concrete companies typically rely on a very precise two hour forecast to ensure their new sidewalks won't get rained on. They used to pay lots of money to private meterologists who "insured" their forecasts (for $499.00 we'll guarantee you'll see no rain in the next two hours or we pay you $10,000.) But with NOAA point forecasts available, as a concrete company I'd be likely to take my own chances regarding rain.

There was a widely blogged press release several weeks ago announcing the public availability of all of the weather data made available to commercial services. This is in the form of XML feeds containing the same packaged info sent to the commercial sites. Check out http://www.nws.noaa.gov/data/current_obs/ for details.

Weather kills far more people in the US than foreign aggression. It is national defense (heck, NOAA even has their own uniformed, commissioned corps), just not defending from what you're too short-sighted to think of.

They already do this: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/forecasts/CTZ005.php? warnzone=ctz005&warncounty=ctc001 (noaa.gov)

Looks to me to be on the edge of a courtyard.

Zooming out a bit, and overlaying the 1984 topographic map on top of the 1988 B/W USGS photo, I get this view which looks like that point used to be in a field next to the building, but when it was expanded (sometime between 1984 and 1988) that location was enclosed in a court yard.

The nearest benchmark is HV4826 which is reported as being destroyed in 1984 - probably during the expansion of the building, so I would say it happened early in that timerange.

There's something very odd about that benchmark record. Check out what it says the underground mark was.

Stuff that should matter, like accurate weather radar, is being drowned in spilled RF energy. If you leave things up to venture capitalists there will be no regulation at all, profits for a few investors and a lower quality of life for just about everybody once you find a reasonable way to value public saftey against the benefits to the entrepreneur and the customers for convenient wireless services. The only way [and it is far from ideal as implemented in the US] to come near the required balancing act is through regulation.
The bia$es of the author of TFA should be transparent to most readers but...

Welcome to Iceburg, Drygalski. Population 0.

Doh! I finally get a story on slashdot, and I have a typo. Well, I feel a little better that someone at NOAA did the same thing here.

And who the heck modded you offtopic? They didn't R the FA, obviously.

Maybe they're in Gainesville, FL where the high today is 81 with 93% humidity, you insensitive clod.

p.s. my first use of this tired old meme, hopefully my last

Well, I guess the retards here don't count either. I'd cite tons of other pinko-commie-we-hate-america sources, but you're an AC, and not worth the effort :)

-WS

As a sailor I always found this really cool: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/ The NOAA has realtime data available from all its weather buoys in the oceans and great lakes; wave height, wind speed and direction, etc.

This is great. I use buoy data all the time as it provides sea surface temperatures/ dewpoint information and is useful in meteorology.
This information can be found here

do we know what actually caused this?

While there there has been an International Tsunami Warning system in place since 1965, the affected countries were not part of that system and had no mechanism in place to allow for early warning.

NPR has a few good reports on the problem.

Cringely has a rather interesting solution that does not rely on governmental action, though with a serious flaw. It only relies on earthquake data, which isn't necessarily conclusive, nor the only cause of Tsunami's.