In case you’re curious, here’s where NOAA stores all their GFS related forecasts: https://registry.opendata.aws/noaa-gfs-bdp-pds/
In case you’re curious, here’s where NOAA stores all their GFS related forecasts: https://registry.opendata.aws/noaa-gfs-bdp-pds/
Max, the first engineer at Urban Sky, hit me up and asked if I wanted to build their mission control. At the time, Urban Sky was just a four-person team, so they couldn’t pay me as much, but I jumped at the chance, even though it meant taking about half my usual salary.
Funny enough, my SaaS background actually helped me create mission control software that was way ahead of the curve!
I guess my advice is, find a small company you're passionate about, where you can make a big impact, and be open to taking a pay cut. It helps the company take less of a risk on you, and you get to work on something that really matters. Plus, when you’re solving real problems, things tend to work out, and eventually, you’ll end up making what you should in salary.
The idea that we'll be able to run ML weather models using "raw" observations and skip or implicitly incorporate an assimilation is spot-on - there's been an enormous shift in the AI-weather community over the past year to acknowledge that this is coming, and very soon.
But... in your launch announcement you seem to imply that you're already using your data for building and running these types of models. Can you clarify how you're actually going to be using your data over the next 12-24 months while this next-generation AI approach matures? Are you just doing traditional assimilation with NWP?
Also, to the point about reanalysis - that's almost certainly not correct. There are massive avenues of scientific research which rely on a fully-assimilated and reconciled, corrected, consistent analysis of atmospheric conditions. AI models in the form of foundation models or embeddings might provide new pathways to build reanalysis products, but they are a vital and critical tool and will likely be so for the foreseeable future.
That’s a good point! In fact, the outputs for observation based foundational models will likely include a "reanalysis-like" step for the final output.
Regarding the next 6-12 months, we will be integrating our data with traditional NWP models and utilizing AI for forecasting. We've developed a compact AI model that can directly assimilate our "ground truth" data with reanalysis, specifically for use in AI forecasting models.
Once we have hundreds of systems deployed, we'll use the collected observations, combined with historical publicly available data, to train a foundational model that will directly predict specific variables based on raw observations.
No one should fund this.
And the government already buys the helium, radiosondes, and ground systems from private vendors—so the money’s going to private industry anyway. It’s just inefficient.
With 50 of our systems doing 4 profiles a day (which is no where close to max scale), you get the same volume of data for way less. And on top of that, because we reach remote and oceanic areas that aren’t being measured today, the data is also more valuable!
Also, the data you’re referring to isn’t inherently public domain. It becomes public when the government buys it and redistributes it. That’s true whether they pay for the infrastructure themselves or buy the data directly from a company.