US govt hiding top hurricane forecast model sparks outrage after deadly Helene The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot reveal weather forecasts from a particularly accurate hurricane prediction model to the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm. The model at issue is called the Hurricane Forecast Improvement …
Ah, but because it happened with a Democratic president (somehow who controls Congress, the supposed legislative, never enters into that), that, together with the escalation in the Middle-East, will bring back the Orange Prince of Peace.
We are so fucked. Is there any way to move Australia into another dimension? Or out of the darkest timeline?
We are so fucked. Is there any way to move Australia into another dimension? Or out of the darkest timeline?
Bit confused? How is ostracising just Australia from this world going to deliver the US?
I am not sure I want to live in the dungeon dimension or a world with a green sky and a purple sun.
>"The contract was signed in 2020. Trump was president until January 21, 2021.
So 3 1/2 years ago, Biden-Harris jumped right on that to undo the problem Trump caused. They got it all sorted out prior to Hurricane Helene, saved the world, and we are all good now. Glad we have them watching out for us.
>way to move Australia into another dimension?
You have to find it first.
Seriously, Australia is well out of the way of anything and everything. The only reason why it figures at all on the world stage is that it for some bizarre reason feels it needs to act as a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States.
This post has been deleted by its author
I had no involvement in the writing of Crime and Punishment, but I sure read it cover to cover.
Unlike me and Dostoevsky, though, Donald and some of the P2025 guys at least knew each other, worked together, have met, and know each others' aims.
> Trump also spoke highly about the group's plans at a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, saying: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
(source)
C.
True. However it was written by 100 guys whole WORKED in Trumps White House, and probably sand a very good chance of working in a second term. Your could of course argue that a exactly detail oriented guy like Trump would never let his suboridinates get away with something he didn't want, but that's another story.
And what exactly stopped Bien/Harris from doing some kind of Governmental act that opened up the data ?
Who's worse , Trump for signing the agreement or Biden for doing nothing. ?
The real truth is that any sitting president would have signed it because it's always about the money.
The Burden/Harris administration is a catastrophy when it comes to domestic or foreign politics. Word salad is helping no-one. So think before you vote, Trump is bad but Harris is far worse.
Can you imagine Harris negotiating with Putin, Netenyahu or any other intelligent world leader, really ?
America needs to change sometime very soon and get rid of all the people in Govt especially Trump and Biden/Harris.
But, you gets what you vote for...
.
I expect Kamala Harris can spell "catastrophe" though, but you vote on what you imagine someone you don't know could or would do, so of course Trump the "Imaginary Hero" is going to look good - he's told you he's the best and because he is a white man he must be "righter" than Ms. Harris.
Also: "Who's worse , Trump for signing the agreement or Biden for doing nothing. ?" Trump is, for signing it. You over-estimate the ability that a President *who follows the laws of the country* has to overturn legally binding contracts, however unethical they may be, especially when a politically opposed Supreme Court will rule in favour of their "hero" and his legacy of failure, hate, division, corruption and violence. Or possibly, you rely on that level of ability.
Basically, "Khaptain" you sound like you're easily led so please follow that sign and go see the Egress.
And BTW I don't misspell Trump because it means "fart" and I appreciate that but you have no real reason to misspell Biden other than your low level of skills in a non-native language.
"And BTW I don't misspell Trump because it means "fart" and I appreciate that but you have no real reason to misspell Biden other than your low level of skills in a non-native language."
Spelling mistakes are not what is important here, an intelligent person would simply overlook these rather minor faux pas and move on in life.
Mais, si tu prefer parler en Française , ca me vas. ( Please, don't judge my skills before knowing what they are.)
And btw, I would not vote for Trump or for Harris. I have simply stated that I feel that Harris is going to be far worse than Trump.. Trump is a big mouth but I don't remember any of his policies being particularly bad for the country, certainly no worse that his predecessors.. Harris has no track record of being successful in anything and you think that suddenly she will be capable of leading America, that's simply not reasonable. Harris and Biden have had almost 4 years to make changes, and done almost nothing except spend money they don't have...
What can you possibly imagine that Harris will change in the next 4 years when she has done almost nothing in the last 4 years..
"The only thing trump has been successful in is lying, scamming investors and using the financial laws to escape responsibility."
Before you vote , ask yourself this question "What has Harris been successful in ?" Is she capable of leading 350 Million people successfully over the next 4 or 8 years.
Trump wont run again after this election, so at most if he won you would only suffer him for 4 years whereas you might have to suffer Harris for 8 years.
Ever time Harris speaks people within a 5 mile radius fall to the ground due to the cringe factor, her word salads are simply unbearable. At least with Trump you can have a laugh....
"Trump wont run again after this election,"
Not "won't" which implies his choice, but "can't", a legal restriction.
Although I find it interesting that twice you put forward the possibility of Harris having not one but two terms when you consider her so unsuitable.
I'm not the one you replied to, so you didn't correct MY won't to can't. Nor do I see how my political leaning is relevant to the question (But if you MUST know, I'd prefer the US actually find someone competent to run their country. The current crop of choices seems a bit lacking. Nor am I expecting Trump to win, but I fear he might)
"Trump wont run again after this election" (sic)
You're assuming if he is elected, he abides by the U.S. constitution and laws regarding the next election processes (something he has proved he has no regard for already). I feel he has a strong desire to try to set up a Trump dynasty, possibly by trying to dismantle the election system and/or getting the law that states a president can only serve two terms struck down. This is one of the things he stated that he admires about Putin's ability to remain in power.
After all, a sitting president is now immune from prosecution for anything carried out as an official act, so who knows what he would try!
I would have a huge laugh if Joe Biden took that newly voted immunity, and used it to have Trump assassinated as one of his last acts, and claim it was part of his official duties to protect the U.S. and it's people from a possible tyrant.
After all, a sitting president is now immune from prosecution for anything carried out as an official act, so who knows what he would try!
Another example of TDS. The Supreme Court ruled that Presidential immunity is, and always has been qualified.
I would have a huge laugh if Joe Biden took that newly voted immunity, and used it to have Trump assassinated as one of his last acts, and claim it was part of his official duties to protect the U.S. and it's people from a possible tyrant.
You'd laugh at having a Presidential candidate murdered? But that's exactly the kind of action you'd expect from a truly tyrannical government and Biden would just find himself charged, prosecuted and jailed for murder. Nobody is, or should be above the law.
You know that jibe about assassinating Trump was ironic tongue in cheek, don't you?
But...
I think that the Supreme court judged that anything carried out as part of their official duties was immune from prosecution. They left it to the lower courts to decide what could, and could not be classed as an official duty.
There certainly seems to be a lot of debate in various social media sites and even between lawyers on the Internet about what this might mean and how far it could be taken.
I love your last comment "Nobody is, or should be above the law". Do you want that qualified by "Unless he's Donald Trump", which is exactly what he is asking for? He incited a riot on January 6th, and his other actions following the last election, and he's trying to cover that up by claiming that what has been proved that he said while on camera was covered by presidential immunity or is fake news taken out of context.
This post has been deleted by its author
When I saw the contract was signed by the Trump admin in 2020 I wasn't surprised.
So where did you see this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Jacobs
When Timothy Gallaudet, the acting NOAA Administrator asked to be allowed to focus on his Senate-confirmed position as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere in February 2018, Jacobs became the Acting NOAA Administrator and late the next year he was nominated to take on the role permanently when Barry Myers withdrew from consideration for health reason. After not being confirmed in 2019, he was re-nominated in 2020. A hearing on his nomination was held in March 2020 and his nomination was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee in May of that year.
Which would also assume Jacobs knew anything about this contract, or probably many of the thousands of contracts that would have been signed by NOAA under Jacob's tenure. Or that Trump would have known about the tens of thousands of contracts undertaken by all the other government agencies. But such is TDS in modern politics. I thought it was a very selfless and heroic act for Biden to stand (ok, sit) hurrican watch from his beach in Delaware though. Now, in shades of Bush, he's going to fly over the devastation in Air Force 1. He may even be able to direct Harris, if she figures out how to plug her headphones in.
A weather forecast is just a guess at what will happen based on what we've seen happen previously. For years we would see hurricanes form in the Atlantic and head into the gulf for a week or longer. But the recent hurricane (Helene) was initially just a depression that formed in the gulf and headed north growing fast, it could have drifted west but grew very strong very quickly and went little east, mostly as a result of the hot high pressure circulation in the Atlantic these days.
This is a totally new situation so whenever a depression appears I always check it every day via the WINDY website and often see that my previous guess was not accurate. That doesn't affect me, climate change means that it's all been different for several years now.
Just to put this in perspective, you are suggesting that your daily peep at a public website and subsequent mental estimation of the path of a massive chunk of multi-level chaos is somehow on a par with a deeply-researched (and governmentally funded) body of weather data applied through a computer model with a computational power requirement that you wouldn't approach even in your wildest sessions of summoning AI-generated elves in various states of undress (and that last is a guess by me but look me in the eye and tell me you've never tried it)?
And that both are therefore worthless because *you* can't do weather modelling *in your head* for massive, complex storms, for which you do not have a significant level of input data?
You are correct that climate change is behind the "hot high pressure circulation in the Atlantic these days" but you can't be very surprised at getting downvotes for your base argument, can you?
"applied through a computer model"
Yes, and that means they have no idea what will happen. except experience.
Specifially, we are talking about a numerical model. Numerical model is nothing more than glorified calculation sheet: You put a bunch of selected numbers in and you get 'a trend' out. Also called 'curve fitting' and that's an engineering tool. Not science.
Trend could be absolute BS and you wouldn't know, if you trust the output as it is. When that happens, you feed some other numbers in and get something which resembles what you wanted to get. There's literally no guarantee that the result has any connection to reality. This is the norm now: No theories, just guesswork.
Actual science has proven theories and formulas derived from them to predict what will happen: There's zero room for guesswork or inaccuracies and if any part of it doesn't fit into reality, the theory is wrong.
Numerical models are never wrong, you always get a result. If it's pure BS, you just need to 'adjust' the model and eventually you get what *you* wanted. Then you declare it to be the Truth(TM).
Whole 'computer model' -phase is redudant and exists solely to hide the reality where both input and output are based on personal opinion.
I think you are supposing how forecasting models work. Not unreasonable but not entirely accurate either. They don't provide an answer but many. The stochastic trail is complex with significant feedback. The interpretation of the computational arrays is complex with copious judgements both human and what may be described as AI today.
Being wrong is what forecasts almost always are. But less wrong than any other consistent method is what they are designed to do and hence essential to warn of possible death and destruction. Their ability to cope with starting conditions never seen before doesn't necessarily invalidate the results if the model is robust enough.
I'm no meteorologist but as somebody who sails a lot I know that there are several different forecasting models, all with their pros and cons, which might (but not necessarily do) give converging pictures of a possible future. Then comes the human scientist, who will, usually from experience, use those results to decide what is likely to actually happen. Of course that person can occasionally be wrong (or not quite right), cue torches and pitchforks.
The main issue with the current weather forecast models is oversimplification: Due to the incredible complexity of local and general weather situations and the pathetic computer resources we can throw at them, those forecasts are just crude approximations. Of course way better approximations than 20 years ago, but still likely to be wrong, or at least not quite right.
Now obviously you can throw the baby out with the bathwater and claim we should have either 100% perfect forecasts or none at all, but there are many professions out there who would strongly disagree (seamen, aviators, farmers, and many more), and who, despite their lives depending on it, manage pretty well with the current situation.
I'm not a meteorologist either, but I did work for several years supporting the supercomputers at the UK Met. Office, and during that time spoke regularly with people who were, and who also were writing and refining the Unified Model, the main model used by UK MO, and several other national weather forecasters.
While I was there, both UK MO and ECMWF (The European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, who worked closely with UK MO) started getting enough power in their supercomputers to allow them to run multiple forecasts, varying the input conditions, and some parts of the model itself, in order to get what they called an "ensemble forecast". The idea was that you selected the outcome of the majority consensus of the various runs you might achieve the most likely forecast. But they also keep in mind the outliers to give a range of possible outcomes, with the one indicated as the most common track as the one that was communicated to the public.
The range was communicated to their own staff in a weekly briefing that was made available to everyone who could get to the main atrium of the building, where the last week's forecasts were compared with reality, and some of the intricacies of the next week's forecasts were presented.
In addition, there was a daily briefing for anybody who could get into their operations centre, mainly so that the forecasters who take calls from the public and their paying clients would have a consistent picture for the upcoming day. (For whatever reason, I was allowed to attend these if I wanted). A lot of this information is actually published (for the UK) on the Met. Office's web site, but it is a bit dry for most people.
The reason why they only give the most likely outcome is because too few people watching the (highly condensed) broadcast weather forecasts actually understand enough probability to make sense of multiple different forecasts, and would just write them off as unpredictable if they saw the full range of results.
The one thing a meteorologist will acknowledge is that the forecasts aren't completely correct. But the aim is to make them correct enough to be useful. And they do care about the accuracy of the model, to the point where when they make proposed changes to the model, they actually go back and run the modified model against historical data to see whether they more accurately model what actually happened. If they do, the changes may make it into the operational forecast. This is the reason why the UK MO keeps the largest database of past weather observations on the planet, going back over a hundred years.
So RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences paid for some of model development costs and contributed their own technology into it, in return for 5 years exclusivity.
If you ban these types of contracts then why would private firms pay and hand over technology?
So instead of the public getting access in 5 years they get access never as private firms won't hand over their technology to allow these models to be developed.
So my take away from your comment is that the basic data collated from public sensors (paid for by the public and collected by NOAA from satellites, ocean buoys, etc.) should be forbidden from being used by private companies unless they agree to share their models immediately.
A private firm can develop their own models as much as they want. The data they put into those models comes from sensors paid for by the people. Without that data, their models are useless. So why should we let those firms, take that data, use it for their own purposes and not return that useful information to the public immediately?
The firms are of course welcome to create their own sensor network out there, but something tells me they are not going to be doing that anytime soon..
"So why should we let those firms, take that data, use it for their own purposes and not return that useful information to the public immediately?"
Because if you don't let them make a profit from the venture then they won't invest in the first place.
Are you going to suggest that drug companies should be required to give out new drugs for free as well?
They will invest. The "if you don't give me everything I will take nothing" childishness doesn't work in business. In business you take what you can get.
Besides, RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences didn't "invest", they created a tool they needed to better assess meteorological risk. The only reason they want to keep it under tabs is to avoid the competition using that same tool too, at least for a reasonable while (in 5 years it will most likely be totally outdated).
Now the question is a legal one, does the fact that tool uses public data to work make the results public too? Sort of a cascading copyleft style license? Should they pay for that data unless they also release the results? That's a question for lawyers and judges. Chances are somebody got some nice payback on this, but obviously not the public taxpayer. As the name suggest, his job is to "pay taxes" so his betters can get some relief.
Because then customers and other insurance companies would be able to use the data to change purchases
If the model says that area X is going to be hit more/ less over the coming Y years then people can choose to buy more/less insurance. Paying for data is so the people setting the rates know this but the customers don't.
It wasn't necessarily time sensitive data about this particular event.
Interesting to speculate on how much it might be worth to an insurance company to decline to take on insurance when they know a bad storm or bad season is coming.
Even with only a weeks notice, you might save a few millions in claims simply by not accepting a few hundred new customers until after the storm has passed.
And what exactly was the availability of this data supposed to change? Dit every other model somehow predict Helene was going to be a mild rain shower with a light breeze and only this one model said it was going to be a disaster? How realistic would it be in that case for people to believe the (in this case correct) model predicting doom? Likely the outcome would have been exactly the same.
It's shouting: Someone ELSE should have done something! Anything! If I had had THAT information surely this wouldn't have happened!.
The reality is that the vast, VAST majority of the disaster area I see where people lost their homes or their lives is that this outcome was just a matter of time. Houses only yards from the open ocean, with no breakwaters, no dunes, no coastal protection. Houses and other buildings in flood planes, right next to streams and rivers. Streams and rivers that have been built up like that for miles and miles both upstream and downstream with no room or provisions for handling high water events. Nowhere for the water to go except as a raging torrent downstream, dragging anything and anyone with it.
The outcome is a tragedy, but let's not pretend that the availability of this one model would have changed anything at all.
That's the problem
NOAA was prohibited from telling us about the predictions made by the model.
Maybe it was useless. Maybe it was incredibly precise.
We don't know. The only thing we do know is that it used public data and was paid for with public funds, yet the only way to get the predictions that the US public purse paid for is to pay through the nose yet again?
at all these fools expecting the government or any business to have their interest in mind.
All the Ferengi look for is profit for themselves.
and for all the pin heads that think that it matters who the president/puppet is, keep praying to your pretend god, maybe he will bring more rain to wash away the tears.
There are so many things happening these days within the US government agencies that would have been unheard-of just 25 years ago.
From finding ways to allow the federal government to fund purely religious organizations (started during George II's reign and blatantly unconstitutional) to the Conman-in-Chief's administration (with the help of cynical henchmen like Mitch OConnell and others) where he not only installed boatloads of political hacks into agencies that then set about systematically disassembling their regulatory mission, but then topped it all off by writing executive orders that made it trivial for the executive branch to fire federal workers for any (but obviously purely political in this case) reason.
Luckily the latter were mostly rescinded by Biden on day 1, but many of the "trojan horses" remain, including the head of the US Postal Service, which just happens to be responsible for delivering mailed-in federal election ballots on time, rather than "mysteriously disappearing them in opposition-dominated districts".
Based on the available information, there is no indication that President Trump personally signed the 2020 contract between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences. The search results do not mention any direct involvement by Trump in this specific agreement.
The contract in question appears to be a standard agreement between a government agency (NOAA) and a private company (RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences) rather than something that would require presidential approval or signature34. Such agreements are typically handled at the agency level.
Key points about this contract:
It was established in 2020 between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences24.
The agreement requires NOAA to keep certain hurricane forecast data (from the HCCA model) confidential for 5 years34.
It is set to expire in 2025, after which NOAA expects to make the HCCA model data publicly available24.
The controversy surrounding this contract stems from the fact that it restricts public access to potentially life-saving hurricane prediction data34. However, the agreement itself appears to have been a standard agency-level contract, not something directly involving the President.
The contract in question appears to be a standard agreement between a government agency (NOAA) and a private company (RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences) rather than something that would require presidential approval or signature34. Such agreements are typically handled at the agency level.
There's also the minor detail regarding the models actual performance. The contractual arrangement means we probably won't know that until the model output can be made public. Renaissance could do that now by cancelling that contract clause. There is also a bigger problem in the US with insurers either refusing to cover risks like fires and floods from storm damage leaving properties either uninsured, or uninsurable due to policy costs. I think California has an 'insurer of last resort' entity, but I don't think all states do. But storms also add to the problem of crumbling US infrastructure, and perhaps need policy changes to building codes and planning to reduce risks and damage costs.
The controversy surrounding this contract stems from the fact that it restricts public access to potentially life-saving hurricane prediction data34. However, the agreement itself appears to have been a standard agency-level contract, not something directly involving the President.
But TDS sufferers never miss a chance to attack their hate figure. NOAA's also a bit of an oddity, eg per wiki-
NOAA was created by an executive order in 1970 and has never been established in law, despite its critical role.
Which then gets into the TDS sufferers Project Fear.. I mean Project 2025 and various proposals since 1970 to make NOAA an independent agency, possibly with some shuffling. So NASA has its own Earth Systems division that does weather and climate forecasting. Does the US need both? Or should this be reversed?
In 1970, President Richard Nixon transferred the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and almost all its functions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Department of Commerce.
Which seems to be duplicative as well, and perhaps the National Marine Fisheries Service should go back to being part of Fish and Wildlife services instead of being under NOAA.
This post has been deleted by its author
