The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cannot reveal weather forecasts from a particularly accurate hurricane prediction model to the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.

The model at issue is called the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) Corrected Consensus Approach (HCCA). In 2023, it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).

2020 contract between NOAA and RenaissanceRe Risk Sciences, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Washington Post, requires NOAA to keep HCCA forecasts – which incorporate a proprietary technique from RenaissanceRe – secret for five years.

  • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Sorry, what a shit, rage bait article is this?

    … it was deemed in a National Hurricane Center (NHC) report [PDF] to be one of the two “best performers,” the other being a model called IVCN (Intensity Variable Consensus).

    OK, what about IVCN? Is this available? We can assume it is as is not mentioned any more in the article. Also skimming the report it’s not like the other reports are wildly inaccurate/unusable.

    Asked whether the NOAA deal affected the release of information about Hurricane Helene, Buchanan said, “HCCA is one of many computer models that forecasters use at the National Hurricane Center. NHC forecasters use a variety of model guidance, observations, and expert knowledge to develop the best and most consistent forecast, along with watches, warnings and other hazard information for use by the emergency management community, the public, and other core partners and decision makers.”

    So the outrage is hot air over nothing. Got it.

    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      38 minutes ago

      It seems the outrage is over this part:

      the public that pays for the American government agency – because of a deal with a private insurance risk firm.

      Which is, on the face of it, outrageous. American public pays for the modelling but isn’t allowed to benefit from it because an insurance company wants to keep the data secret.

  • meliodas_101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    They’re confusing us again it doesn’t matter what happened before what matters is what you are doing now.

        • P00ptart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          We’re in direct control of the people with the most money. The government has lost all control. If it were a corporation, it would have control.

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            We are not in direct control. That’s the disconnect.

            Case in point: the US sells arms to Israel. Numerous polls show a lack of support for Israel’s current actions among US citizens, and yet the arms sales continue.

            I get that the electoral college is a great excuse for the popular vote not mattering in presidential elections, but what is the excuse when the country has said they don’t want their money going somewhere but it doesn’t stop flowing?

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Can we please stop with the privitization? It’s absolutely not been working out very well for the people.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 hours ago

      But it makes so much money for corporations! Tax payer money is used for research and everything else that costs money, then we get a private company to just ‘commercialise’ it! Tax payers take on all the risk and investment, profits go straight to shareholders.

    • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This is actually the opposite of privatization. The government is using private technology that they will be able to make public in 5 years.

      • kent_eh
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 hours ago

        they will be able to make public in 5 years.

        That’s a bit late for a weather forecast.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It worked in high growth economy 50-70’, and boomers are stuck there.

      • basmati@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It really didn’t even work then, those at the time just offloaded the real cost of their policies to the contemporary poor and current entirety of the population.

  • TipRing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    A deal penned under the Trump administration because of course it was. Government sold to the highest bidder.

  • Linktank@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    They don’t want average joe to get out ahead of the corporations. Could be bad for business!

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s not even close to the level bullshit that has gov’t funding drug research, and then getting gouged by drug companies. That doesn’t make it right. I hate this on principle, but on a pragmatic level I doubt the difference from the many current models is noticeable other than on a trivial statistical level. That said, it does really piss me off as a matter of principle.