Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristopolous | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I could barely care less because NOAA weather models are garbage. The NOAA GFS and NAM models are basically dinosaurs at this point compared to what Meteoblue is running. I've been tracking this stuff for ten years and it's not even close anymore. GFS still limps along at 13km resolution and only updates four times a day. Like, are we still in 2010? It completely screws up thunderstorm timing and can't handle mountains for shit. NAM isn't much better at 12km resolution, constantly busting rainfall forecasts especially in complex terrain.

Meanwhile, Meteoblue's models are on another level. NEMS cranks at 3km resolution and nails thunderstorms like 30% better than NAM. The German ICON model with its weird icosahedral grid is crushing GFS by 15-25% on wind forecasts. Then there's the European ECMWF model everyone knows it consistently beats GFS by at least half a day in accuracy. AROME is insane for mountain forecasts with resolution down to 1.3km, making NAM look like a joke with 40% better precipitation predictions. The real game-changer though is Meteoblue's multi-model approach, which averages out the errors from individual models and boosts accuracy by 20-35% over the old school GFS/NAM combo. I don't know why anyone still relies on GFS or NAM except for historical consistency or if you need a really broad overview. For anything specific or local, the newer models demolish them.

Can we get a disclosure on your experience and who you work for, if you’re going to weigh in so heavily on important public vs private sector issues like this?

I'm an avid cyclist with a keen interest in not getting struck by lightning on a 60-100 mile ride in the rainy season.

It may be worth mentioning that NEMS and AROME are only available for parts of Europe. I'm willing to believe they are better, but here in Northeastern America I typically find that NAM is the best I have available for 3-day, and GFS is usually slightly better than ECMWF and ICON for long term (although none of the long term are great).

NOAA is asleep at the wheel while initiatives like Google DeepMind are partnering with ECMWF to build state of the art weather models.

https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/gencast-predicts-weath...

The entire fishing industry relies on NOAA.

This is not good.

Before Covid, Trump

* disbanded the NSC Pandemic Unit,

* cut the CDC, specifically the overseas pandemic tracking and response units

* withdrew the CDC Representative in China

* shutdown the PREDICT Program tracking coronavirus and zoonotic diseases

* Eliminated the Global Health Security Office

Basically T-balled Covid-19.

These people slash, burn and dismantle organizations that have successfully prevented disaster, then disaster happens.

We're going to see staggering levels of death and destruction from things like hurricanes because of this wild corrupt foolishness and I'm sure they'll blame it on some black person or woman somewhere, like they did with the bridge collapse and California fires

> This is part of the plan to gut and privatize NOAA because the billionaire behind AccuWeather says so.

Source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Myers

>Myers faced criticism in 2005 when he supported the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, a bill introduced by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) that some argued would have prohibited the National Weather Service from publishing weather data to the public when private-sector entities, such as AccuWeather, perform the same function commercially.[34]

'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.'

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-what-pro...

Trump tried to nominate the CEO of accuweather to run NOAA his first term, but was blocked. That CEO has lobbied to get Congress to limit the services NOAA provides so it doesn’t “compete” with companies like accuweather.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/noaa-nominee-accuwea...

Project 2025 calls for moves similar to that.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-what-pro...

Key quotes:

> 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.

Should be enough from here for you to find your way with Google to further details, including the primary sources on the P2025 stuff.

> The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241129041037/https://static.pr...

Also worth noting AccuWeather CEO was nominated to lead NOAA in 2017 by Trump but withdrew after waiting more than 2 years for Senate confirmation.

... This isn't even difficult to find, and it was a major issue during the first Trump administration.

For one example: https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/noaa-...

It’s an opinion - he/she is the source

It's quite literally a stated goal of several people involved in the current administration.

So, not an opinion. The sources are the dozens of times they've said they want to shutter NOAA.

It's explicitly stated as an intentional plan, out in the open, loudly, documented, widely reported, going back many years in many outlets, both domestically and internationally.

If your head is so far up the right wing bullshit machine that you can't bother to find out this extremely widely documented fact then this comment isn't going to help you.

Keep drinking that koolaid brother

How do you go bankrupt? Slowly, then suddenly.

How do you go bankrupt slowly? “This $10 subscription is only 1/400th of our finances; therefore it’s fine, and the kids really get a kick out of it.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com