White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA • Hacker News Board

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#201

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 9:22 PM UTC

DaUR wrote: post #151

nkozyra wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominem, strawman and passive aggressiveness in a single sentence. Impressive. We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for that. The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is perplexing. Our military c…

Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?

[deleted]

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#202

Post by nkozyra » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #145

nkozyra wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and we've already established it's one we'll likely breach in a Trump admin. The margin is just wiggle room.

So do you think that he'll intervene more than Clinton would have done?

It would be purely speculative. I'm not sure what that has to do with this specific discussion.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#203

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #145

nkozyra wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and we've already established it's one we'll likely breach in a Trump admin. The margin is just wiggle room.

So do you think that he'll intervene more than Clinton would have done?

[deleted]

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#204

Post by tasty_freeze » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 10:15 PM UTC

Imagine the free market purists get their way -- all funds are cut for NOAA and weather prediction is now left to private industry to provide as a service.

It is an article of faith among many that the free market always produces a better, even optimal, solution. That may be true, but what it is optimizing is profit, which is not a direct measure of the accuracy of the service.

For certain market segments, such as farming, there is probably a pretty strong alignment. But what about for, say, answering questions about whether climate change is real? Will we see a market for conservative-aligned weather information providers which delivers the product which the right wants to see? Likewise, will there be markets to provide what the left wants to see? I have a hard time seeing how that is an improvement over what we currently have.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#205

Post by tasty_freeze » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

exclusiv wrote: post #118

peckrob wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Dixie Alley [0], a place prone to incredibly violent tornadoes. The National Weather Service, part on NOAA, has saved many lives here. If you follow along on a weather enthusiast forum like TalkWeather [1], you'll see just some of the protection that NWS provides us. The prediction and modeling alone are amazing. The thought of not having those people looking out for me is terrifying. [0] https://en.wikiped…

Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there, but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that? I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap which is worrisome, but can it be solved…

The people who live in Manhattan know that they are a prime target for terrorists. Is it the government's job to invest in protecting those people because it was their choice to live and work in Manhattan? /s

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#206

Post by Rebelgecko » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 10:41 PM UTC

cool_look wrote: post #175

Rebelgecko wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read a very convincing (to me at least) debunking of that first link, but unfortunately I'm not able to find it right now. But from memory: The claim is that the temperature data in the first map is made up because some of its data isn't present in the second map (just look at Africa, South America, and the oceans). HOWEVER: The first map shows a combination of two data sets. The second map only shows one…

From the stackoverflow comments its clear that theoretical models have been proposed to infer the temperature on land from the ocean database. the main concern is that the models are pure junk science. so saying "our models say it is so" is precisely the problem

Are there any specific concerns with the methodology? I didn't see any mention of that in the first link.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#207

Post by mirimir » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 11:34 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #180

mirimir wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe B has overwhelming power now. But if B's position is untenable, that will eventually become apparent. And yes, that may take far too long to be of any good.

But if B's position is untenable, that will eventually become apparent. Sure. That's why B is investing heavily in its military.

I thought that this subthread was about US politics. That's so knife-edge that it could flip in four years. But yes, if the US goes full-moron, and takes a military approach to climate mitigation, all bets are off :(

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#208

Post by gpawl » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 11:54 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #178

icehawk219 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used weather.gov for years and love the service. Every person I've talked to who complains about the crap coverage by the weather companies in the US that I've shown it to uses it exclusively as well. It's a perfect example of the governments lack of profit motive producing a genuinely better product than the competition. I know this isn't always the case but it certainly is here. I don't agree with lots of thin…

> It's a perfect example of the governments lack of profit motive producing a genuinely better product than the competition There is no better product because it's not commercially viable to compete against the free money that NOAA receives. If NOAA didn't exist, others would try to compete commercially in that space. In the UK the Met Office is notionally a part of the Ministry of Defence[0] but is required to be pr…

and how would competitors get funding? by making each member of the public individually pay for a subscription?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#209

Post by gpawl » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

hexane360 wrote: post #154

username223 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. A lot of weather sites just pull the free NWS data and wrap it in ads. Some use higher-resolution grids or better models (check http://forecastadvisor.com/ for your area), but they're almost always at least based on the free NWS data. Also, only weather.gov lets you click around on a map to get their model results for any square on the grid, not just towns and cities. What is wrong with these people?! EDIT: Wei…

It's very easy to look at this and conclude that the White House has serious problems with studying climate change. I'm sure sticking our heads in the sand will fix the environment.

You are confusing your goals with their goals. Their goal is to stop environmentalism from interfering with near-term business performance, not "fix the environment".

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#210

Post by drdeadringer » Sat, Mar 04, 2017, 11:57 PM UTC

LnxPrgr3 wrote: post #162

krapp wrote: post #33

Of course they are. NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age. NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers can. So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see which way the wind is blowing.

Sure, but its products help keep those populists alive—or at least give them a fighting chance. I bet everyone in Alabama at the time remembers April 27, 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Super_Outbreak

I have a doubt that keeping those populists alive is a goal here in lieu of, say, money or at least profit -- regardless of long-term "if no populous, no tax or consumer basis" outlook.