NOAA RSS Top Warning 2.0 PHP Script

[curly]

The Hazardous Weather Outlook doesn't show up in any of the active zones that I've tried.
Checking NOAA's available alerts, it's not listed there. They do list Hazardous Seas Watch , Radiological Hazard Warning, and Hazardous Materials Warning. http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/product_list.txt

Do you think we can get NOAA to add it while their atom feed is at beta?

[CNYWeather]

Thanks Mike.

Curly, I only see text HWO. I had it working in the script I was using before.


http://www.erh.noaa.gov/bgm/hwo/hwo.php

[curly]

My understanding is that NOAA doesn't put the HWO product in a RSS feed but has it as a text page. Ref: http://www.weather-watch.com/smf/index.php/topic,30730.msg246962.html#msg246962

There are scripts to get the HWO directly. Here is one of them.  http://www.weather-watch.com/smf/index.php/topic,21300.msg166357.html#msg166357

[CNYWeather]

So Carter Lake's script there will just get the HWO and I can put that on the main page with the Rss-Advisory Rick?

[abaldish]

We have a Hazardous Weather Outlook and a short term forecast. but the Hazardous Weather Outlook is not showing up.

rss-top-warning-2009.php - V2.00 09-Jun-2008 BETA .008

New alert added in the sorting of the top warning: "Hazardous Weather Outlook".
Thanks to Tony at cnyweather for the suggestion.

[curly]

That will work Tony.

This is the only alert product that I've seen that isn't in a RSS feed. (there may be others)
I don't understand why they do this while they do have a feed for "911 Telephone Outage".     It would be very convenient if NOAA had it in the RSS feed like the other products.

Seems kind of silly to have a special script written just to get this one product.  (end of rant)

[CNYWeather]

Remember that warning you helped me out with? Can that be modified or is that
gonna go by the wayside also. It used text products I think.

I guess what i'm saying is, what is the advantage to using the feeds vs. text products?

[curly]

I guess what i'm saying is, what is the advantage to using the feeds vs. text products?

I'm thinking feeds are quicker to access and the formatting makes it easy to work with as compared to an html page.

Mike would know for sure...  lol

[CNYWeather]

knock knock knock.............Is Mike Home?

[MCHALLIS]

Is there and advantage to using the feeds vs. text products?

Yes, the feeds have specific XML tags (fields) to contain the data.
This is more reliable because we do not have to rely on matching text strings in the HTML. Sometimes they might change the HTML code, then the script will be broken until we find the new parts to match.

[MCHALLIS]

I found a link color Specificity issue in the PHP carterlake template CSS compatibility with RSS Top Warning 2009

The solution:
PHP carterlake template users need to update to the latest css files Version: 1.22  14-Jun-2009 here:              
http://www.642weather.com/weather/scripts/css-theme-switcher.zip

The RSS Top Warning 2.0 PHP Script does not need updating.

[Smitty]

I am getting this "Can't connect to MySQL server on 'mysql-cluster' (4)" from http://www.weather.gov/alerts/wwarssget.php?zone=MOZ087

I guess its been down since Monday sometime. 

[curly]

The server has been up and down yesterday and again today.
It must be an over-load with all the storms in the south and midwest. 

NOAA's NWS has been doing some strange things with the atom feed and I expect this to happen until they take the word "beta" out of the url.

[BigOkie]

The server has been up and down yesterday and again today.
It must be an over-load with all the storms in the south and midwest. 

NOAA's NWS has been doing some strange things with the atom feed and I expect this to happen until they take the word "beta" out of the url.

I've been getting that error off and on when advforecast2.php tries to access the forecast for my zone.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it won't, which leaves my page with no forecast.

[ThorntonWeather]

I am curious...  Has anyone else noticed an inconsistency with some of the short term forecasts issued via the new RSS feeds versus the old way?  Here is an example, as of right now for COZ040 (Denver):

RSS Feed:

Isolated thunderstorms will develop over the mountains of north central colorado by early afternoon. Initially the storms will be most numerous from southern grand county across summit county into western park county. Some of these storms will produce brief heavy rain...small hail...and wind gusts to 40 mph. The storms will become more widespread during the afternoon.

Old method:

Isolated thunderstorms will be developing over the mountains and foothills then move east on to the front range metro area and over the palmer divide through 2 pm. Initially the storms will be most numerous over jefferson county. Some of these storms will produce brief heavy rain...small hail...and wind gusts to 40 mph. The storms will become more widespread during the afternoon.

These two short term forecasts while similar contain quite a bit different information.  The new RSS feed talks about areas mainly west of Denver in the mountains.  The old one is more accurate in that it pertains more directly to COZ040 and the Denver area. 

Just wondering if the Denver feeds are the only ones with this odd behavior.  If so, I may drop the local NWS office a note and see what they say.  Thanks!

   T