Will a new 'Weather Commission' be a benefit or a travesty?

A supercell thunderstorm menaces central Oklahoma on May 17, 2010. Tornadoes and hurricanes have killed more than 2,000 Americans and wreaked billions of dollars in damage over the last decade. Credit: ©UCAR. Photo by Carlye Calvin.

This smells like Trenberth’s doings at the behest of Al Gore and his “Dirty Weather” Campaign. If so, then I’m against it, because all this will do is create another bureaucracy loaded with opinionated thinkers sucking up more tax dollars adding to the already out of control federal deficit.

From the  National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Experts call on Congress to create first US Weather Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. — With the U.S. economy vulnerable to weather events costing billions of dollars, an expert panel today asked Congress to create the first U.S. Weather Commission. The commission would provide guidance to policymakers on leveraging weather expertise across government and the private sector to better protect lives and businesses.

“The nation must focus its weather resources on the areas of greatest need in order to keep our economy competitive and provide maximum protection of lives and property,” says Thomas Bogdan, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. “Emerging technologies are providing an opportunity to create forecasts that are more accurate and detailed than ever, and to communicate them instantly to key communities and businesses. We need a U.S. Weather Commission to ensure that our entire weather research and technology enterprise provides maximum benefit to the nation.”

At a time of fast-changing technological innovation, the commission would advise federal policymakers on setting priorities for improving forecasts and creating a more weather-proof nation. The goal is to help ensure cost-effective spending on the nation’s weather systems while minimizing the impacts of both major storms, which last year alone cost about $52 billion, and normal fluctuations in weather, which have an estimated annual economic impact of $485 billion.

Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences released a hallmark report, Weather Services for the Nation: Becoming Second to None. The report concluded that, even with recent concerted and much-needed efforts to modernize the National Weather Service, the country faces challenges in harnessing the best science and private sector resources available for protecting the nation from weather impacts.

These challenges are rooted in evolving scientific and technological advances, rapidly changing needs of the nation’s weather information consumers, and an increasingly capable and growing third-party community of weather services providers.

Congress has twice created an ocean commission for setting direction on commerce, research, and defense related to the world’s oceans. But there has never been a U.S. Weather Commission, even though weather has far-reaching effects on all Americans.

Commissioners would provide guidance on issues such as making appropriate investments in satellite and radar systems, protecting vulnerable communities, setting research priorities, and meeting the needs of key sectors, ranging from agriculture to utilities to the U.S. armed forces.

“Weather is immeasurably important to public safety and our economic competitiveness,” says Pam Emch, a senior staff engineer/scientist with Northrop Grumman Corporation and one of the panelists. “Effective organization of the diverse entities that span our weather enterprise is necessary for economic stability, innovation, and the good of the nation.”

“Improved weather information can be an engine for economic growth,” says panelist William Gail, co-founder and chief technology officer of the Global Weather Corporation. “As we develop increasingly detailed understanding of our atmosphere, there is enormous potential for helping the public and businesses.”

“We must keep pace with accelerating scientific and technological advances and meet expanding user needs in our increasingly information-centric society,” says panelist John Armstrong, chair of the Committee on the Assessment of the National Weather Service’s Modernization Program.

Bogdan says that a commission approach, guided by key actors across the entire weather enterprise, will provide needed direction and consensus.

“The U.S. Weather Commission offers the promise of better research, state-of-the-art prediction, and protection for the health and prosperity of the U.S.,” he says. “It will also foster growth for the innovative private weather sector we have all come to rely upon. This is an issue that affects all members of Congress and all their constituents, no matter where they live.”

Today’s panel briefing was the first step in a process that will continue into the next Congress. The panel’s next steps are to brief staff and members on the importance of the commission and the role it will play, seeking their guidance and support for establishing the commission in 2013.

###

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

On the Web:

For news releases, images, and more www.ucar.edu/atmosnews

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Frank Kotler
September 28, 2012 8:56 pm

… and its inevitable enforcement arm, the Weather Security Agency… to give you a little “freedom pat” if you should try to look out the window to observe the weather for yourself…

September 28, 2012 9:08 pm

I’m just wondering out load here … but, what limits does the US federal govt place on private ‘operations’ in the area of weather, and in this case, I’m thinking ‘active weather modification’.
A couple of us are wont to initiate a thunderstorm (convective thundershower) when conditions are preventing same from occurring because of a capping (Cin or Cinh) inversion … it only takes breaking the ‘cap’ via one of two ways, via a properly unstable ‘airmass’ that is more buoyant than the capping layer, or, by forcing the lower layer airmass through the cap via an artificially-produced vortex originating at the surface using say, several surplus high-bypass turbo-fan jet engines canted upwards at an angle …
Just thinking out loud here; what would the liability be if such an initiated thunderstorm turned Tornadic and did property damage?
.

September 28, 2012 9:55 pm

Backyard runup and idle power test of a Rolls-Royce RB211-22B turbofan engine suitable for creating the project of creating a ground-based vortex for convective T-storm initiation.
It took two “air starters” to light this thing off, and the power level she was run up to was only idle; note the tree movement to the rear:
MAKE SURE YOUR SPEAKERS ARE TURNED APPROPRIATELY LOW: THIS IS A REAL TURBOFAN ENGINE AND THE SOUND IS FULL-SPECTRUM!!!

.

F. Ross
September 28, 2012 9:57 pm

Another government crap program to waste more millions [at first, anyway]; more know nothing bureaucrats sucking up more of the nations GDP.
If there is a true lack of good weather prediction and advice, all they need to do is contract with Bastardi and a couple of his cohorts.

September 28, 2012 10:42 pm

“Improved weather information can be an engine for economic growth,” says panelist William Gail, co-founder and chief technology officer of the Global Weather Corporation. “As we develop increasingly detailed understanding of our atmosphere, there is enormous potential for helping the public and businesses.”
I cannot believe anyone is talking about this kind of stuff right now. If they fail to address the fiscal cliff the only economy we will soon have left is credit and debt. Tax-mageddon will cripple everything that presently isn’t credit & debt much worse than it already is.;

JamesD
September 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Pork and Power grabbing. Guess what, people who need highly accurate weather forecasting already pay for it. For example, grain traders have their own forecasting providers. Oil companies with platforms and rigs in the gulf also contract for it. No need for the government. These private companies compete to provide the best forecasting service at the lowest price. Joe Bastardi is already doing this through weather bell.

mfo
September 29, 2012 1:57 am

“….. the commission would advise federal policymakers on setting priorities for improving forecasts and creating a more weather-proof nation.”
55555555
I think they should set up a commission to decide whether to set up a commisiion to consider whether to create a commisiion to “weather-proof the nation”. They actually mean climate not weather. Except if they say climate everyone will laugh at them. This smells like yet another scam to siphon tax payers’ money into the pockets of rogues and scoundrels.

Coach Springer
September 29, 2012 6:50 am

“leveraging weather expertise across government and the private sector to better protect lives and businesses.”

Chuck Nolan
September 29, 2012 7:03 am

Of course we need a ‘weather commission’
The National Weather Service is totally unable of do whatever it is the new WC can do.
I like the idea of hiring Al Gore to head this new and flexible group. Hey, maybe Obama can give them a cabinet position. We could add a rule that the only laws enforced will be ones that Al Gore says are ok and the UN approves.
WMO, UN, EPA, NWS, NAS, NSF, GWC, NOAA, NASA, UCAR, NCAR, throw in NASCAR and I think we’ll be close to having enough input to make a highly paid for, clear and well positioned decision. We could ask GE, ELF, WWF, Greenpeace, California, and China for direction, too.
That should fix everything.
/sarc off
What a dumb idea.
Whose idea was this , anyway?
“What a maroon. What an ignoramitus.”
Mr. B. Bunny
cn

Christoph Dollis
September 29, 2012 1:12 pm

Oh, silly me. I just realized he didn’t write this article: you did about his work. Still, it would be helpful in general.

September 29, 2012 3:21 pm

The first choice of every bureaucrat — create a new commission. This is pointless. The most important obvious thing the US federal government could do to reduce weather-related property damage is to stop the federal flood insurance program, which encourages development in areas which flood regularly. Let the private insurance market set a price based on realistic risk appraisal. If that’s too expensive, then don’t develop there.
Second, changes in residential construction techniques (pneumatic framing nailers) have made residential structures significantly more vulnerable to catastrophic failure in high winds. Building code revisions to require better fasteners (already available) would make new construction much sturdier while adding less to the total cost than complying with “water saving” toilet requirements.
Third, most US residential power distribution is by aerial lines which a vulnerable to tree damage in high winds. And the more “environmentally conscious” the community the more they resist proactive tree triming by the power utilities. Amazingly these are precisely the areas most affected by storm-induced power loss and the most vocal in insisting that “somebody” do “something” about it. Either spend the money for underground distribution lines or trim trees and remove diseased ones near power lines.
There are other fairly simple and not not very expensive measures which would reduce weather-induced damages. No commission is needed.

TomE
September 29, 2012 4:16 pm

The folks who used to be CAGW dons need a place to go to maintain their image, prestige and salary. I am sure the commission will be much like the Weather Channel now that NBC owns it, 90 percent reality shows, 10 percent weather, and never about where I live except for the local weather on the 8’s. Of course, its not bad to not be mentioned in the weather since only places with bad, news catching weather incidents are covered.

Crispin in Johannesburg
September 30, 2012 2:42 pm

There are two pluses that I can think of: it is cheaper than going to war (vested interests have to pork out somewhere and it offers at least some potential to allow NASA and NOAA to get on with their real jobs.
@Owen – you nailed it. Thanks.
The major danger seems to be creating entities with statutory powers. In South Africa they have a job and training killing NHBRC created to please the banking sector. They were only a nuisance until they became a statutory body answering to themselves.

October 3, 2012 1:17 am

Reblogged this on Standard Climate.