Topic: The National Weather Service, US

[nichi]

A tree fell on my house in 2003 during Hurricane Isabel, here in Norfolk, Virginia, and ever since then, I have had an increased interest in Hurricanes and cyclones around the world.
One of the more reliable (nonsensational) sites from which to get information is the NOAA webpage,  http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ .
The Weather Channel's webpage is also good, but often sensationalized and glutted with hits, such that download is difficult.
 
NOAA now proposes to remove their maps of disturbances in the ocean, which they are calling "offshore waters" :

Proposed Changes to NWS Web Page Display of Marine Warnings Over Offshore Waters
The National Weather Service proposes removing offshore waters warnings and forecasts from NWS home page maps. This proposal would remove Gale, Storm, Tropical Storm, Hurricane, and Hurricane Force Wind Warnings over the offshore waters from national and local Weather Forecast Office Web page map displays. There has been expressed concern these warnings highlight the entire zone, not just the actual event within that zone, and create unwarranted anxiety of the potential for danger in neighboring coastal waters and land areas.
 
The proposed changes will have no effect of weather watches/warnings/advisories currently displayed over coastal waters and land areas. Offshore waters zones will no longer be clickable nor linked to text forecasts. Access to the offshore forecast text products will continue to be available at Marine Forecasts and other webpages

http://www.weather.gov/offshore/

If I understand this proposal correctly, this means they will remove their maps of tracking of the hurricanes. So if Hurricane Hypothetical is starting up in the middle of the Atlantic, we will not get to see its path visually until it comes into coastal waters.
 
The rationale for this reminds me of criticism and commentary around the great Indian Ocean Tsunami, wherein Thailand could have received a warning, but powers-that-be abstained from getting the information out, lest the tourists be disturbed. Lest money be lost. Not that much evacuation could have been accomplished with so little notice, but with hurricanes, we have the advantage of knowing well ahead of time.   And the visual of these maps really drives it home! The maps are excellent information!
 
I myself have offered "comment" to the NOAA site, which they have invited, and I hope others will too.
 
A disturbing thing happened Saturday/Sunday here informationally. The Weather Channel was running a red warning bar along the bottom of the screen for this area on Saturday night-- a High Wind Warning, wherein this area was going to experience 24-48 hours of sustained winds of 35-45 mph, with gusts to 55-65mph.  That's the kind of weather that will bring more tree damage, so I was interested in the story! As I was trying to read the entire advisory running along the bottom, it got yanked from the screen. So naturally, I assumed that the warning had either downgraded or had somehow changed. When I got out and about on Sunday, it was clear that the event had not changed or downgraded, so I looked it up on the Internet when I got back. Sure enough, the Warning was still on.  I had to dig for it, though. So I am speculating that the Weather Channel has also been requested to stop "worrying us" so.
 
I believe that this limitation of information is all part of the "Global Warming" whitewash we are now seeing from this administration.  I am not a journalist, and I'm in no position to prove it, but I'm hoping that someone will take the ball and run with it.
 
Now on another level, which is a whole other can of worms, those of us who work with hurricanes in visualization very much need the visual of the maps provided by the satellites. But no matter --- that's too other-worldly to consider.  I think it's reasonable in normal consensual reality to not deprive the people of this information.  I for one have made decisions about changing flight-times based on seeing the trajectory of a given hurricane on these maps, days in advance. I've hit the stores early for supplies. This kind of information could only be a good thing, for everyone.
 
What sort of world has it become, wherein information is shielded so as to not upset us? Hahah, I know, welcome to the real world. But doing it with the weather too --- it's just too much. Too much, and potentially more dangerous in the withholding than whatever "stress" it may bring.
 
Sincerely,
V Lambert   

[erik]

President Bush's support has hit a new low: 28%.

In Soviet Union 'never happened' anything bad - no disasters, no crashes, no accidents, etc. All information on such events was immediately classified. Many liked to live in such false cocoon of safety. Many miss that time and cry warm tears because of that lost false sense of security. Many might like it in the US as well.

[nichi]

The storm which was ongoing here on Sunday was actually a subtropical storm, and they didn't tell us. Now that it has engorged a large part of the southeastern coast of the US, they can't deny it anymore. I don't know for how long I will sound like a "kook" on this issue. The item which I shared above is now archived, so who knows who will come upon it. I wonder if this means that they will just quietly take the maps off their site, and no one will be the wiser.

This the first tropical storm in a season which isn't supposed to start until June.  The early storms aren't as bad, though, because the water hasn't had time enough to rise to a temp of 80 degrees F.

"Sub-tropical" Storm Andrea.   

[elliot]

President Bush's support has hit a new low: 28%.

be nice if there was a no confidence provisional for the american people.  in other words, when the polls hit all time lows:  re vote the president in or out.....

[nichi]

Not only was this item archived, but they removed the commentary boxes and changed the text, to say this "might" happen, in some near future. (Oh, I can only hope I had something to do with this change in events. I'll never know, though. I contacted several journalists.)

The NWS is considering proposing changes in Web Page Display of Marine Warnings Over Offshore Waters
 
The National Weather Service has recieved a number of comments about offshore warnings highlighting very large marine areas when Gale, Storm, Tropical Storm, Hurricane, and Hurricane Force Wind Warnings are in effect over the offshore water. There has been expressed concern these warnings highlight the entire zone, not just the actual event within that zone, and create unwarranted anxiety of the potential for danger in neighboring coastal waters and land areas. Several options are being considered. Any proposed changes to the National and local Weather Forecast Office displays of offshore warnings on NWS Web pages will be opened for public comment.

http://www.weather.gov/offshore/

And here is an example of what they are proposing the maps to be reduced to:




This is a woefully inadequate amount of information. When it's hemmed in this closely, we're talking a day or 2 tops for potential evacuation -- as opposed to 5-7 days warning with the other maps.
And we don't have the data from this little map, such as: where is it headed? Is it coming from the north or the east? Is it heading into the gulf or is the east coast of the us going to take the hit? Is there one system or two out there? Or even 3?    The maps tell those stories easily.

Not to mention, it's all terribly fascinating, to me. The maps can actually ease the mind, rather than abet anxiety. For example, one can just look at them and see that a given storm will be staying to sea.

In my mystery/conspiracy-theory mind,  I imagine that they are withholding these maps in order to keep them from the eyes of "enemy"-visualizers, who learned in the past couple of years that they could actually direct the course of the storms through focusing on the maps.  But a more likely scenario is that there have been complaints from the owners of resort hotels and resort-properties along the eastern seaboard and gulf coast -- who have no doubt lost a bundle of money in the past couple of years. 

</cynical rant>

[nichi]

It's a game now!  Can you find the 2 hurricanes mentioned in this most unreadable notice, brewing right now in the Atlantic -- unmentioned and unmapped for the public! Shhh, it's a secret, so no one will get upset! So that the administration won't have to hear that the season is a month early.

THE ATLANTIC OCEAN...
A DEVELOPING MIDDLE TO UPPER LEVEL TROUGH IS ALONG 32N75W... TO THE NORTHERN BAHAMAS NEAR 27N78W TO THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA. A SURFACE TROUGH IS ALONG 27N77W TO ANDROS ISLAND TO CUBA NEAR 22N79W INTO THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA NEAR 20N81W. SCATTERED STRONG SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS ARE WITHIN A 30 NM RADIUS OF 23N73W. SCATTERED MODERATE SHOWERS TO ISOLATED STRONG THUNDERSTORMS ARE WITHIN 60 NM ON EITHER SIDE OF 30N74W 27N69W 24N66W 21N64W. OTHER ISOLATED MODERATE SHOWERS ARE NORTH OF 20N WEST OF 60W. A MIDDLE TO UPPER LEVEL TROUGH RUNS FROM A CYCLONIC CIRCULATION CENTER NEAR 28N50W TO 20N54W AND 15N55W. THIS TROUGH SUPPORTS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN STATIONARY FRONT THAT PASSES THROUGH 32N42W TO 24N50W TO 20N60W AND 20N65W. ISOLATED MODERATE SHOWERS ARE FROM 19N BEYOND 32N BETWEEN 43W AND 52W. A SURFACE RIDGE RUNS FROM A 1029 MB HIGH PRESSURE CENTER NEAR 35N55W TO BERMUDA TO 30N75W. A FAR EASTERN ATLANTIC OCEAN MIDDLE TO UPPER LEVEL TROUGH RUNS FROM ONE CYCLONIC CIRCULATION CENTER NEAR 32N23W TO 25N27W TO 15N36W. A SURFACE RIDGE PASSES THROUGH 32N33W TO 23N38W TO 14N42W. UPPER LEVEL SOUTHWESTERLY WIND FLOW TRAVELS FROM 8N40W TO THE EAST OF THE 32N22W 10N44W TROUGH... EVENTUALLY ACROSS THE CAPE VERDE ISLANDS AND AFRICA.

[nichi]

Every day, the situation seems to change at NOAA. Now, it would seem they are going to post the maps:: they just aren't going to issue public advisories until the cyclone enters coastal waters.     They can't make up their minds: the whole issue is embroiled in politics.
I want to cross my fingers that this situation doesn't change about posting the old-style maps, though. Some of us might actually want to learn about current events, all over the globe -- not even just in US waters. They are supposed to be deciding what they are going to do in the next few days.

Here is the first E. Pacific event. From what I've observed, E. Pacific events don't typically hit the north or south american mainlands:  however, last year, there were at least two hurricanes which hit Baja.  (All bets are off about the "typical" anymore, if you ask me.)

I realize these maps may not be of crucial interest to the readers here: I'm only illustrating the possibilities in their old-style maps. These are the maps they were proposing doing away with:






Additionally, the us navy offers a good satellite visual
for a world-wide panorama here.   So perhaps, the information will basically be 'there' if one cares to dig.   

[nichi]

To me, the entire matter comes down to this: us culture is myopic. It does not focus on events around the world, unless they are either unavoidably dramatic (like the Great Indian Ocean Tsunami) or they "involve" us directly somehow.

Now, this myopia threatens to constrict itself further -- away from the offshore waters around the us mainland, even -- putting the us, awareness-wise, into an even tighter fishbowl of perception.   For even though those of us climate-buffs can still dig for the information online, NOAA still plans on only issuing advisories if the events threaten to enter coastal waters.

Therefore, in these times when us cultural-consciousness desperately needs to grow and extend beyond itself, it is being tightly reined-in and encapsulated. That's a tragedy that will bite us in the arse, no matter how stressed any of the citizens become about storms.

~Typing from within the glass bowl.