Several countries have commercialized their weather data to varying degrees. Here are a few examples:
United Kingdom: The UK Met Office has a commercial arm that sells weather data and services to businesses. They provide tailored forecasts, climate data, and other meteorological services to various sectors, including agriculture, energy, and transportation.
Germany: The German Weather Service (DWD) offers commercial services alongside its public offerings. They provide specialized weather data and forecasts to businesses, particularly in industries that are heavily impacted by weather conditions.
Australia: The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has a commercial division that sells weather data and services to private companies. This includes tailored forecasts and access to specialized datasets for industries such as agriculture, mining, and aviation.
Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) provides some commercial services, allowing businesses to access detailed weather data and forecasts for a fee. This is particularly useful for sectors that require precise weather information for operational planning.
Japan: The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) provides some data for free but also has commercial agreements with private companies that utilize their data for various applications, including weather forecasting and disaster management.
European Union: The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) offers commercial access to its data and forecasting services, allowing businesses to utilize high-quality meteorological information for decision-making.
All these examples are for auxillary services, all of those you mention provide the forecasts and data used to create it for free. Don't trust AI for good answers. The only one on your list that limits the provided RAW data is ECMWF, but the raw data that is open contains all the significant elements of weather.
Great, never said other countries limit the data and ONLY sell it, but NOAA essentially does not commercialize anything (its so insignificant it doesn't show up on its budget). Maybe auxiliary services is a good start.
It's worth noting that many of these are service agreements, not just data. It's tailored/specialized forecasts that are being built for the customer, not simply selling them the data they give to the public for free. So doing additional work for a fee, not monetizing existing data.
Because some morons think everything needs to be a business. We can't possibly be spending money on something unless it is generating money back, ignoring the fact that it is providing a service to make our lives better.
Interestingly, nobody seems to be concerned that the military ($841.4B budget) doesn't generate revenue and isn't run like a business. But everything else in the government should pay for itself?
Are these the same people who think that if you cut funding for HUD and other agencies concerned with helping the poor, the poor with just magically find jobs, join churches, and pay their own way like "proper humans"?
If they keep up Project 2025, I predict in about 10 years, they are going to get a very rude awakening, if not sooner.
>If they keep up Project 2025, I predict in about 10 years, they are going to get a very rude awakening, if not sooner.
You are optimistic. The supporters of Trump and his ilk ignore consistency as a rule. The exact same thing they insisted trump will never do so it's okay for him to be in power, they will then insist that actually no it's a good thing trump is doing that.
They opt in to a media environment wholly held by Rupert Murdoch, Elon, and Trump. They reject any reporting from other groups on principle. They keep saying "I haven't seen any <blank>" for any of the awful ideas this admin has because they literally don't see anything Fox News and friends haven't shown them. They get marching orders, not information.
Christ, it was only a few years ago that they insisted that Roe V Wade was "settled law" and totally safe and nobody wants to ban abortion and within a month of the lawsuit being brought, the entire narrative had switched to full bore "umm actually it's really bad ruling so we should get rid of it even though we make no effort to protect abortion rights also abortion is bad"
The true believers in Germany took until the red army was in berlin before they really fucking got that the Nazis had filled them with lies, were utterly incompetent, and had thrown millions of their best boys to die for a conspiracy theory. I hope it's also clear from things going on in germany right now, plenty of true believers didn't even figure it out then!
If trump continues Project 2025, you WILL be hearing how women are actually too hormonal and emotional to manage money and shouldn't be allowed to have credit cards. You WILL be hearing about how single mothers shouldn't be allowed to raise kids and so we should end no fault divorce.
How does the appointment of Bondi (AG) and Gabbard (DNI) fit into this evil plan? Are some women more womany than others? RvW was never 'settled law', it was a court decision and the Supreme Court said after 50 years, "enough is enough." Supermajorities of both parties neglected to codify it any which particular way or the other as a result of cowardice. It was our electeds that failed us, not the court. As the 50th year anniversary approached, you'd expect something to happen. I say this to everyone whether they are claiming victory or defeat. I didn't want it to revert back to the states, but generations of Congress evidently did.
Long term climate is not weather forecasting. Our 7-days are getting pretty good, though they run a bit warm (watch the high peaks on the temp forecast sink a little on successive days as they approach tomorrow.) Some of NOAA's long climate forecasts are actually a danger to NatSec because they misrepresent the likelihood and impact of severe Winter events. Go ahead, read between the lines of what I am saying.
