Does Government Weather Forecasting Endanger Lives?

Fox News ^ | 8/22/07 | John Lott

[NY.SS-Bar9]

As Hurricane Dean roars through the Gulf of Mexico, it reminds everyone how dangerous the weather can be. But it should also remind everyone how poorly the National Hurricane Center has been at predicting storms.

Despite dire predictions from the National Hurricane Center, no hurricanes hit the U.S. last year. This year they are again predicting as many as 10 hurricanes, up to five of them hitting the U.S. Fortunately, Dean also seems most likely to miss us.

All this raises a question: Is the government’s free weather prediction service so bad that it is worth paying for private companies to predict the weather?

[rock_lobsta]

Accuweather gets a lot of face time on Fox News.

Could it also be a coincidence that they get 2 very positive mentions in the first 5 paragraphs?

I didn’t think so, either.

[NautiNurse]

How many aircraft can safely fly into the eye of a hurricane simultaneously? Who would oversee air traffic control, and what should we do when two aircraft from competing companies produce significantly different data on storm direction and speed?

Should state and local governments contract with one or two or five companies to assess and enact emergency operations plans?

I see my taxes going from one pocket to another.

[JohnRLott]

There is no conspiracy here. I wrote the piece. Fox News did not tell me to include anything in the piece.

[JohnRLott]

If you look at Forecast Watch or Forecast Advisor, you will see quite detailed evidence that is more than anecdotal that the private companies do much better the government NWS. Don’t these poor statistics concern you?

Why are people paying for a service that is provided for free by the government? Presumably because they think that they are getting a better job done.

This is not a deep argument. The question is one of incentives. If your company would get the same amount of money no matter what job that it did, how hard would you all do in trying to please customers? Is that a particularly surprising result? If the company gave away its product for free, how much poorer would its product have to be before people would pay for another competing product? Those are the only two major points that the article is making.

[JohnRLott]

How can they make a profit from forecasting weather? Bad weather has a huge impact on people, particularly something like a hurricane. There is a lot at stake so why don’t you think that companies and various media would pay a lot for weather forecasting?

Take something else that is expensive, indeed much more expensive. Is there a problem with weather satellites? They may cost $10 million plus, but so do communication satellites. How is it that private companies can provide communication satellites?

[NautiNurse]

Welcome to FreeRepublic. I appreciate that you have taken the time to address some of the comments in response to your article. I look forward to your feedback regarding my questions and comments.

Thanks in advance.

[JohnRLott]

Thank you. To answer your question, I think that it is much more difficult to scare people with weather predictions than in other types of stories because whether their predictions are right or wrong are easily measured. Accuracy in regular news stories is much more difficult to measure. Forecast Watch or Forecast Advisor are two excellent examples of this type of measurement.

[dirtboy]

This is not a deep argument. The question is one of incentives.

Forecast Watch is also trying to sell weather information. So from the start, they have at least an incentive to tear down a competitor who is doing it for free. I'd have to do a fairly detailed analysis of their methodology.

How can they make a profit from forecasting weather?

I asked how a business model would be profitable from flying into a hurricane. Can you imagine the liability insurance issues, compared to the government, which just sends in the military?

[dirtboy]

If the company gave away its product for free, how much poorer would its product have to be before people would pay for another competing product?

As I recall, AccuWeather had Rick Santorum lobbying to diminish the role of the NWS in forecasting. So apparently market forces aren't quite enough to nudge customers in their direction - apparently enough people are satisfied with what they currently get for with their tax dollars.

[NautiNurse]

I appreciate your response. As a small business owner, I am a great proponent of private enterprise. While I am entirely comfortable with private companies providing my daily radar needs, I view hurricane forecasting on the order of national defense.

As an average citizen, my daily weather interest lies in a general need to know for planning: e.g. watering the potted plants, or grabbing a rain jacket. I know that pleasure boating is best accomplished in the morning during summer, as t-storms are more likely to crop up in the afternoon. Living in the lightning capital of the U.S., this is how most of us plan outdoor activities.

I use internet radar access to fine tune my schedule around daily weather events. Detailed long range and short range radar are part of my daily routine. Anyone who can provide the most clear radar has my support. Currently, I use weatherunderground as a paid member.

Living in the lightning capital of the U.S. also means I am in hurricane territory. Hurricanes are the most labor and budget intensive weather events I experience because I own and live on waterfront property.

When a hurricane enters the Gulf of Mexico, I could boast 98% accuracy if I predict a storm will make landfall between Brownsville TX and Key West FL. If I recall correctly, the early Accuweather prediction for Katrina landfall was between Houston and Tampa. I would hardly call that a win for Accuweather. I saw an Accuweather graphic predicting the possibility of hurricanes from Browsnville to New England for the 2006 hurricane season--another case where Accuweather bragging rights are misplaced. Disaster planning and emergency ops depend upon more accurate and detailed information. The NHC is accurate enough for my needs in hurricane alley. Our lives and property are at stake. I say no to the likes of Accuweather.

[ichabod1]

Remember when Joe B@atardy of Accuweather was claiming the weather data was too important for regular people to access and that all reports should be filtered through a middle man?

[JohnRLott]

Over $800 million in government subsidies is not “market forces.” That subsidy allows the NWS to give away its product for free. Unlike a private company, that subsidy will allow the NWS to stay in business even if it does a very poor job.

[JohnRLott]

Given how much is at stake from hurricanes, why don’t you believe that companies wouldn’t have a big incentive to provide these forecasting services and data gathering?

As an economist, I don’t see why this is similar to National Defense. The problem with National Defense is that there is a big “free-rider” problem. There is no free-rider problem with forecasting the weather. Lots of people pay for these forecasts (businesses, media, people). Where is the problem?

In any case, there are two issues here data gathering and forecasting. Do you think that the government would provide the type of services that your company does as well as you do?

[JohnRLott]

This type of behavior can exist any place and it is one reason it is good to have competition.

[dirtboy]

Over $800 million in government subsidies is not “market forces.” That subsidy allows the NWS to give away its product for free. Unlike a private company, that subsidy will allow the NWS to stay in business even if it does a very poor job.

Apparently, the quality differential is not so high as to make people wish a change. $800 million works out to less that $3 per capita in tax dollars.

[RckyRaCoCo]

the weather commercial channel is pretty pathetic

Indeed...way too many other weather info outlets are much more reliable when you need "real time" weather information. HERE is a link to get severe wx warnings almost as soon as national weather service posts them.

And of course NOAA's website along with many others will give you real-time wx radars without having to wait through wx channels 50 "head-on" type commercials.

[Nick Danger]

Lots of people pay for these forecasts (businesses, media, people).

The entities you mention are certainly paying something for the forecasts, but I'd be very surprised to hear that their payments collectively add up to anything like the fully-burdened cost of providing the forecasts. AccuWeather, for example, does not so much sell forecasts as they sell purty pictures that lower-budget TV stations can use to spiff up their weather reports. They can make money doing that because there is a real cost saving in producing the graphics once and having them used by local stations in dozens of cities, as opposed to every station having to duplicate all the nifty graphics machines and hiring somebody who knows how to run them.

But the fact is, there is a 'free rider problem' here too, since all these guys selling "forecasts" can price their product as low as they do because they are getting virtually all of their input data for "free" (read: at the taxpayers' expense.)

I agree that this is not an argument for having the government run the natural monopoly in data collection; we could use a privately-owned regulated-utility model to provide that. Trouble is, if all the costs really got loaded into the prices charged by AccuWeather et. al., would any of these corporate and media entities be willing to buy them at the new, higher price? If not, does that end up increasing the costs to the taxpayers in the long run, as people do not do what they could do to minimize destruction because they didn't hear it was coming?

Concerning similarities to national defense, another is that hurricanes represent uninvited trouble from abroad of a sort that most people don't want to believe will ever happen. If someone had tried to sell information concerning Japanese aircraft carriers approaching the Hawaiian islands in 1941, most people would have blown them off. Even today, most liberals think that the correct solution to the threat posed by al-Q'aeda is to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la la la la I can't hear you." Sometimes the adults in the room just have to force the children to deal with threats that the children don't want to hear about.

[NautiNurse]

Do you think that the government would provide the type of services that your company does as well as you do?

Oddly enough, my successful consulting business thrives precisely because of onerous government regulations. It is the health care equivalent of an accounting firm making sense out of the IRS tax code.

Back to the weather...

You have made some good points, albeit we disagree on several issues, including your favorable opinion about Accuweather. I believe most of us want our weather forecasts to be accurate, economical, and without sensational hype, tease, or commercials. As I've stated before, hurricane recon has been available virtually real time for several years. There are a variety of weather discussion boards where professionals and novices alike test their forecasting skills against the weather outcome. All in all, the NHC does a remarkably good job, particularly for a government agency. They have taken a beating in the press lately due to management issues, but that is another discussion. It seems to me there are plenty of other government agencies swallowing much larger portions of our tax dollars that are deserving of more press criticism than the NWS.

On the other hand...if you were to propose private contract maintenance of the NOAA buoy system, I would cheerfully agree with you.

[Vinnie]

I’m rather neutral as to the NWS, but I think they have done a remarkable job in forecasting hurricane landfalls the last several years.
The forecast track for Dean has been lower Texas at its most northerly track since Dean was waaay out in the Antilles.

Folks don’t remember years past when landfall predictions were 24-36 hrs tops.