Commentary: Automated system not best way to track weather
Kevin WilliamsLong time readers of this column may recall some years ago my railing against a new automated weather observation system that was scheduled to be installed at area airports across the country.
We are updating that column today but first have some background on the system.
Sometime before 1990 a grand plan was hatched by someone in the government to modernize the National Weather Service. This plan had worthy goals, some of which have since been met. These included the upgrade of the weather satellite network and the replacement of 1950s era conventional weather radars with high powered and extremely sensitive doppler radars.
Unfortunately the plan also included the replacement of human observers at airports across the country with automated systems. The new system was dubbed A.S.O.S. for Automated Surface Observation System. Public relations experts told us that the system would be more reliable, offer more observations and save taxpayers money since many federal jobs would be terminated with the replacement of human observers.
But the system, in my view, has been a colossal failure.
Incredibly, A.S.O.S. was designed without the ability to measure critical parameters, including: snow, blowing snow, sleet, fog, hail, freezing rain, high clouds and thunder. Additionally, the measurements are often unreliable. There have been countless cases where the system reported continuous rain when, in fact, the skies were clear or times when visibility measurements were contaminated by swarms of insects. And the kicker is that the system reportedly cost taxpayers $2 billion.
Why should the legal profession care about any of this?
Because our nation's record of weather conditions is being contaminated. As such, weather related cases could be effected as the conclusions expert meteorologists draw may necessarily be less specific and less useful.
Fortunately, because A.S.O.S. has performed so poorly, human observers are supplementing the automated reports at some airports such as Rochester's. For how long this will continue I do not know. Our record has not yet been fouled.
Time and time again I have come to appreciate the fine measurements taken by the observers at our airport. Last year, for example, I researched a case dealing with ambient evening lighting. At the time of the incident, the observer reported high clouds which were important to our analysis but would have not been observed by the A.S.O.S.
Other data sources such as satellite imagery could have assisted us, but why should meteorologists have to go to such lengths to just determine what clouds were in the sky over Rochester? This is not to diminish the usefulness of other data sources such as radar and satellite imagery. But in weather observing, there is nothing as critical as the ��ground truth�� supplied by the men and women who are trained to observe and measure atmospheric components.
We will keep you posted on this issue.
Kevin Williams is president of Weather Track Inc., and director of meteorology at WHEC-TV channel 10, WHAM and WVOR.
Copyright 2001 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.