Comments on: Some Thoughts on U.S. Weather Policy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3540 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Kooiti Masuda http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3540&cpage=1#comment-1417 Kooiti Masuda Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:28:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3540#comment-1417 Quite another comment. This opinion partly conforms with what my employer (a research institution ... see link at my name) promotes, and it may be biased because of that. But nevertheless this is my own opinion. I think that cloud-resolving global atmospheric models, now in the stage of basic research, can considerably improve medium-range (1 to 2 week) weather prediction in the tropics (though it is not yet guaranteed). Its impact in the middle latitudes may be just as far as tropical influence matters. Improvement in weather prediction in the mainland U.S. by this technology may not justify the huge investment on computer resources and "research". Improvement in weather predition in the tropics may not be the primary task of NOAA (or other national weather services in the middle latitudes). On the other hand, it is very unlikely that tropical countries, even together, can afford such investment (though their participation is essential). I am not sure how it can be achieved, but anyway it will require public funding of "developed" countries and cooperation by NOAA and other national weather services. Kooiti Masuda at Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Yokohama, Japan. Quite another comment.
This opinion partly conforms with what my employer (a research institution … see link at my name) promotes, and it may be biased because of that. But nevertheless this is my own opinion.

I think that cloud-resolving global atmospheric models, now in the stage of basic research, can considerably improve medium-range (1 to 2 week) weather prediction in the tropics (though it is not yet guaranteed). Its impact in the middle latitudes may be just as far as tropical influence matters. Improvement in weather prediction in the mainland U.S. by this technology may not justify the huge investment on computer resources and “research”. Improvement in weather predition in the tropics may not be the primary task of NOAA (or other national weather services in the middle latitudes). On the other hand, it is very unlikely that tropical countries, even together, can afford such investment (though their participation is essential). I am not sure how it can be achieved, but anyway it will require public funding of “developed” countries and cooperation by NOAA and other national weather services.

Kooiti Masuda
at Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Yokohama, Japan.

]]> By: Kooiti Masuda http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3540&cpage=1#comment-1416 Kooiti Masuda Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:22:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3540#comment-1416 >*In the developed world the future benefits to society of weather services are primarily in the private sector I think it may be true (though I am not very sure). I do not mean to object it. On the other hand, I fear of this kind of statements being quoted out of context. In the United States, observational data taken by the federal government are put in the public domain. But it is not the case in other countries. In the discussion of policymaking, "private sector" usually means market economy (not family life), and emphasis on the private sector very easily implies that meteorological data should be considered economic goods. This idea hampers free exchange of data. Even if the price is cheap, or if academia are subsidized for the cost of purchasing data, putting the derived (merged, analyzed) data in the public domain becomes difficult. I think that the desire for free exchange of data is not simply egoism of the research community. It is important for the public in "the developing world" as well, for instance. But it is difficult to win the debate against simple-minded privatization proponents. I think that protecting and fragmenting information is a "tragedy of anti-commons", but I do not have its demonstration. I think that this issue applies to the United States as well if private sector takes over the observational role of the government. I am sorry for making an out-of-context comment. But this is out of my real anxiety. Kooiti Masuda in Yokohama, Japan >*In the developed world the future benefits to society of weather services are primarily in the private sector

I think it may be true (though I am not very sure). I do not mean to object it.

On the other hand, I fear of this kind of statements being quoted out of context. In the United States, observational data taken by the federal government are put in the public domain. But it is not the case in other countries. In the discussion of policymaking, “private sector” usually means market economy (not family life), and emphasis on the private sector very easily implies that meteorological data should be considered economic goods. This idea hampers free exchange of data. Even if the price is cheap, or if academia are subsidized for the cost of purchasing data, putting the derived (merged, analyzed) data in the public domain becomes difficult. I think that the desire for free exchange of data is not simply egoism of the research community. It is important for the public in “the developing world” as well, for instance. But it is difficult to win the debate against simple-minded privatization proponents. I think that protecting and fragmenting information is a “tragedy of anti-commons”, but I do not have its demonstration. I think that this issue applies to the United States as well if private sector takes over the observational role of the government.

I am sorry for making an out-of-context comment. But this is out of my real anxiety.

Kooiti Masuda
in Yokohama, Japan

]]>