Debunking misunderstandings between the public and private sectors.

by: Michael R. Smith

Source: Five Myths Of Commercial Meteorology. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. July, 2002: pp 993-996. Permission to place a copy of this work on this server has been provided by the American Meteorological Society. The AMS does not guarantee that the copy provided here is an accurate copy of the published work.

For over five decades, the meteorological community has been discussing the relationship between the private and public sectors in meteorology.

At issue is to what degree applied meteorology should continue to reside outside of the mainstream of the American economy. Should government (and government-funded entities) continue to take the dominant role? Or, should the private sector's ability to efficiently provide the products and services required by business and the public lead it to play a larger role than it does today?

In 1948, a committee reported to the Chief of the Weather Bureau the results of its study of the private sector titled "Statement of Relationships between the United States Weather Bureau and Industrial Consulting Services" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1948). This issue has been considered at various times during the subsequent 54 years. A recent attempt to resolve the issue occurred in 1991 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991) with the publication of the "Policy Statement on the Weather Service/ Private Sector Roles." A comparison of the 1948 report and the 1991 report indicates a remarkable similarity in the issues considered.

This debate continues because, unfortunately, the issue has never been resolved. In the view of many in commercial meteorology, the 1991 public-private partnership policy has not been completely successful. The National Weather Service (NWS) has created products and services that traverse the guidelines set forth in the 1991 statement. Other federal agencies engage in activities that, if they were under the jurisdiction of the 1991 policy, would be in violation of it. In response, many commercial meteorologists, since 1995, have attempted to persuade Congress to legislate a solution.

Since the late 1990s, the issue has become even more complex, with universities and government research labs partnering, developing products, and, in some cases, even creating their own private sector meteorological organizations. In a number of cases, the National Weather Service has given these organizations a "head start" by allowing them to receive data and support unavailable to the private sector. An example would be access to WSR-88D level II radar data. For two years, this data was available to university researchers involved in commercialization activities, but denied to private sector weather companies. The combination of preferential treatment in data acquisition, access to federal funds, and the use of taxsupported infrastructure and resources creates an unlevel playing field in the view of many in the private sector.

In 2000, the National Weather Service requested that the National Academy of Science (NAS) study the issue with a goal of recommending an appropriate interface between the National Weather Service and the private sector, and, perhaps, between the academic community and private sector. This study is ongoing.

Given the NAS study, and the more general debate within the community, I believe these deliberations could be conducted on a higher plane if the parties have a better understanding of each other. The purpose of this paper is not to advocate a specific role for the respective sectors but rather to highlight five widespread "myths" about commercial meteorology, which can mislead those considering these issues.

SOME DEFINITIONS. "Private sector meteorology" refers to for-profit organizations that employ meteorologists. Examples include media meteorologists; in-house meteorologists employed by air pollution, agricultural, or energy companies; and meteorologists employed by commercial weather companies. "Commercial meteorology" is a subset of private sector meteorology and refers to for-profit companies that sell meteorological products or services to third parties. Examples include Accu- Weather, Digital Cyclone, Surface Systems, WSI, and WeatherData. A more complete list can be found online at http://205.156.54.206/im/dirintro.htm.

I was employed in broadcast meteorology from 1971 to 1981 and am a former chair of the American Meteorological Society's Board of Broadcast Meteorology. I am the founder (1981) and CEO of WeatherData, Inc., a commercial weather company. For a number of years, I have worked with the Commercial Weather Services Association on policyrelated matters and have testified on this subject before the Science Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The five myths have come up with surprising frequency and represent consistent sources of misunderstanding.

MYTH NO. 1. All commercial meteorologists merely reformat the output of the National Weather Service. While some commercial meteorologists do reformat NWS data, others go much further. In the former cases, value is added when the commercial meteorologist puts the information into a (presumably) better format for the intended use, or distributes the information through a specialized channel.

While the sale of reformatted information does occur, many commercial weather companies integrate both governmental and nongovernmental sources of data to create their own forecasts, storm warnings, or other products. These create value for their clients through superior accuracy, precision, timeliness, specificity, or some combination thereof.

There are now commercial weather companies that operate their own computer models using proprietary algorithms in order to provide value for their clients. To be sure, weather information collected and disseminated by the government is a critical element in the nation's meteorological infrastructure, much like economic data collected and disseminated by the government (e.g., by the U.S. Census Bureau) is a critical element in the nation's economic infrastructure. However, the oft-repeated myth of "reformatting" represents a fundamental misinterpretation of the breadth and depth of the private sector today.

MYTH NO. 2. Commercial weather companies will not provide storm warning services (beyond reformatting the National Weather Service's) because of concerns pertaining to liability. There are commercial weather companies that provide tailored storm warning services to their clients, independent of those issued by the National Weather Service. Opportunities exist for such warning services because the nature of NWS warnings is such that warnings are typically issued at a large spatial and temporal scale, for example, counties and hours, while many businesses can effectively use more specific information. There are warnings of specific situations (i.e., 15-mph winds affecting a hot air balloon race) that are vital to specialized users, but of little or no interest to the public at large. The state of meteorological science and technology is such that the capabilities exist to provide such tailored warning services reliably and effectively. Generally, liability is not a major concern for three reasons: 1) liability is disclaimed in the contractual relationship between the commercial weather company and its client; 2) to date, court rulings pertaining to liability are generally favorable to the meteorological profession (Klein and Pielke 2002a,b, manuscripts submitted to Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.); and 3) because of professional liability insurance, which brings us to our next myth.

MYTH NO. 3. Commercial meteorology companies cannot get liability insurance. There are two forms of liability insurance pertinent to this discussion. The first is "general" liability insurance, which covers a company if, for example, someone slips and falls on ice and is injured on company property. It is very common and most every company carries it. The second type is "errors and omissions" (EO) insurance, which covers actual and alleged defects in the work of professionals (attorneys, architects, etc.), including meteorologists. While EO is not as widely available as homeowner's insurance, EO policies are written by several insurance companies. I am aware of a number of commercial weather companies that carry EO insurance as part of their corporate risk management strategy. A recent review of legal liability in weather forecasting suggests that meteorological firms may share the same sorts of potential liability as other professions engaged in providing prognostic information, such as in financial services (Klein and Pielke 2002a,b, manuscripts submitted to Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.). While more specific case law is sure to develop in this area in the future, those in commercial meteorology, as in other professions, have an obligation to protect their business and their clients through proper liability insurance, which can reimburse a client for a loss incurred through an error or omission. Such protection is indeed available.

MYTH NO. 4. Commercial meteorology companies use technology that is inferior to the National Weather Service's. This myth is particularly baffling as the private sector in general, and commercial meteorology in particular, have frequently led the way in meteorological innovation. Consider the following examples of meteorological innovations created by the private sector:

• tornado warnings,¹
• color radar,
• radar remoting,
• in-home agricultural weather displays,
• complete color newspaper weather packages,
• the National Lightning Detection Network,
• Roadway Weather Information Systems, and
• television weather warning displays, including the time the storm is forecast to arrive at particular locations.