Living on the Real World

It’s a privilege to be in Washington, DC, and to work on Earth observations, science, and services.

Many people might find that hard to believe! News coverage, focusing as it does on what’s wrong and vexing, invites those outside Washington to see life here as a vicious political dogfight, accompanied by a deafening, cacophonous, unrelenting babble of (mostly) angry voices and spin.

Those who live and work inside the Beltway struggle to keep in mind any larger purpose as they bear up under stupefying workloads, urgent deadlines, and an oppressive grind that grows more overwhelming with each passing year. Up to their necks in alligators, they can be distracted from clearing the swamp.

Do you have a piece of that portfolio responsible for Earth’s resources, environmental protection, and safety in the face of hazards? You might be forgiven for feeling frustrated. It certainly seems these vital challenges are being ignored in favor of the (sometimes contrived) urgency of other national concerns. Budget cuts are the rule. Programs and infrastructure that ought to be robustly supported are in a fragile, parlous state.

But the simple fact? It’s an honor and an opportunity to do such work. Building instruments to capture and record the Earth’s workings; designing, fabricating, and launching satellite platforms to make the observations; harnessing computers to digest the terabytes of data; making sense of it all? Using the knowledge to preserve ecosystems and ecosystem services, and make the nation and the world wealthier and weather-ready?  You can’t ask for more satisfying labor. And the people here in DC? As smart, as energetic, and as high-minded as anywhere on the planet. At the core, what we have in Washington are half a million folks who were raised by mom and dad with the notion that they ought to be making the world a better place.

For the past several months, work here has had even more to commend it. Why? Because Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan is back in town, as the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction, and Deputy Administrator of NOAA.

A former astronaut – who deployed the Hubble telescope and who was the first American woman to walk in space – Dr. Sullivan is educated in oceanography and marine geology. In the 1990′s she served as NOAA’s Chief Scientist. She has run a science museum and a university-based science policy center, and has served on the National Science Board. There’s much more that could be said about her background and credentials. Just remember this…people haven’t given her such jobs over an extended period of years just to be nice. They’ve done it because again and again in such roles she’s put together an unbroken string of successes and achievements. She’s more than repaid the nation’s investment.

She’s a leader.

In the brief period she’s been back, even in the midst of grueling days, she’s been asked for, and generously shared, advice and encouragement to future leaders in our field. Those who’ve been present will tell you – such occasions have been special. She could write a book on leadership. Perhaps she will down the road.

But for today, please take a moment to contemplate a thought she’s offered repeatedly. I don’t know its origins. Maybe for some group or on some occasions she’s unpacked the meaning and the background, but I’ve never heard her do so. She may well regard it as incidental. When I’ve been in the room (as at this year’s AMS Annual Meeting), she’s said it in passing, almost as a throwaway line:

Think differently. Ask another question. Learn more.

Wow.

She’s said much more, all of it significant, but I can’t get this one small bit out of my head. I keep circling back to it…and I bet you will too.

Instead of simply speed-reading on, please make some time for contemplation. How do you see this applying to your life, your situation? How can you use this advice? What would you like this mantra to mean to you? If you were expanding on this thought, how would you explain or paraphrase it to others? If you take the trouble and the time for such reflection, you’ll be glad you did.

Six quick, initial thoughts (and apologies and disclaimers, since I’m not privy to the original intent here)…

First, thinking differently suggests coming at a problem from a range of different ways, building options, identifying all alternatives, trying different starting points, etc. It’s not an invitation to be sloppy or undisciplined.

Second, it’s easy to imagine astronauts giving this primacy in their work. If everything you’re doing is unprecedented, so that you can’t be guided by routine or experience; if the effectiveness of years of work by thousands of people; if the fortunes of the nation investing billions of dollars into your work – if your very life and the lives of others – all hinges on how well you know and do your job, you too might emphasize thinking differently, asking another question, learning more.

Third, the line makes sense and offers utility as three separate activities, but also as one integrated thought. So on the one hand, you and I should constantly think differently. In every situation, we should always ask questions. And we should never stop learning – reading and absorbing books, acquiring new skills, etc. But it’s also easy to see this as a unified single act. Thinking differently in any and every circumstance will bring to mind a different question, which you and I should voice, not keep to ourselves. In so doing, we will learn more than we would have otherwise.

Fourth, this is not a one-off-and-you’re-done idea. It’s never ending. We’re to do…and repeat.

Fifth, you and I would do well to try this in our relationships as well as our work. Imagine if we did this with our spouses and life partners, and our families. Think of the benefits if we even did this in the early stages of getting to know each other. Suppose we sought out those who would help us see things differently. Suppose we asked each other questions before rushing to tell them about ourselves. Suppose we were eager to learn from one another, instead of instruct one another?

Sixth, suppose you and I modeled this behavior…and encouraged everyone we knew to join us. Would Washington and the world become a better place?

You bet.

Today…this week, this month, this year? Think differently. Ask another question. Learn more.

An increasingly popular and visible feature of AMS Annual Meetings is a suite of so-called Town Halls. Often scheduled for the lunch hour (and therefore attracting primarily that minority of attendees who prefer food for thought to the competing invitation of physical sustenance with friends), these sessions are supposed to model the iconic town halls that once were the heart of the new England political process. They’re more about community input than any erudition of the speakers.

AMS Town Halls are typically used to roll out federal agency initiatives, strategic plans, and/or explore the interface between our community’s science and major developments within the policy arena. A sampling: yesterday one provided researchers a look at emerging directions for DoE’s climate and earth system modeling. Another looked at threats to the continuity of Earth observing systems – a topic frequently discussed in this blog. Today’s offerings include a Town Hall looking at (non-political) recommendations from our community to whichever administration takes office in January of 2013. Another will look at the progress on the National Climate Assessment. A third tackles the role of ethics in the business of meteorological consulting and research.

We’ll see how many people that leaves to show up for three others, including a Town Hall on Risk Mitigation for Climate Adaptation and Natural Hazards, which will take place from 12:15-1:15 in Room 238 of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.

I highlight this latter because I’m a last-minute substitute panelist, covering for a speaker who was unable to make it.

My comprehension of the focus is a bit sketchier than it should be; I’m scurrying to come up to speed. But the session seems to take its cue from a recently-released Summary for Policymakers of an IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).

[and my sincere and abject apologies for the swarm of acronyms and jargon here…]

For those in the field, this special report has been required reading. Thirty pages or so of thoughtful, well-reviewed and well-documented material. [We can look forward to publication of the full document next month.] Here’s the bit that to me looks salient today: “Closer integration of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, along with the incorporation of both into local, subnational, national, and international development policies and practices, could provide benefits at all scales.” [page 9]

The idea, in a nutshell, is that the notions of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation share much in common. The Town Hall announcement highlights the difference this way: risk management draws from history, while climate change looks to the future. The idea is the incorporating this forward-looking perspective into more traditional hazard risk management will lead to more resilient communities.

This is a great thought…but also maybe a no-brainer.

[Perhaps we could reach quick agreement, adjourn early and join the others for lunch.]

On reflection, this session also provides opportunity to reflect anew on five ways (there are undoubtedly others) we might make hazard risk management itself (and by implication, climate adaptation) more effective.

Embrace No-Adverse-Impact policies. Environmental impact statements have been with us a long time. You know the idea. When you and I contemplate construction, land use, etc., we have to assess the environmental consequences of our actions. In a similar way, we could and should assess the benefits and/or risks our plans and actions imply for community resilience.

Learn from experience. When it comes with natural hazard rsik management, we should adopt the learn-from-experience habits of aviation, as embodied in the work of the National Transportations Safety Board.

Measure progress. Hazard loss figures are noisy year-to-year and uncertain. But the discipline of continually honing our ability to estimate losses will in itself contribute to the awareness needed to motivate loss reduction when averaged over years.

Foster public-private collaboration. Such collaborations are not optional in today’s free-market societies. However, there’s considerable room for improving the level of such collaborations. They should not be fragmented, haphazard, merely tactical. They should instead be truly collaborative, ongoing, strategic.

Revitalize a venerable institution. Much has been made recently about a notional move of NOAA from the Department of Commerce into the Department of Interior. Dr. Lubchenco was questioned on this in her talk of yesterday. With NOAA embedded in Commerce, a good case can be made that the Department of Commerce provides an excellent home for achieving these several goals of hazard risk reduction and climate adaptation. However, this potential has been recognized and ignored for decades. If it’s never to be realized, then a move to Interior makes more sense.

Those who need no introduction are most deserving of one…

…but how do you introduce a legend?

Dr. Lubchenco arrived at the AMS Annual Meeting here in New Orleans yesterday. This morning she delivers a keynote talk at the Seventh Symposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Research, in Room 243 of the Ernest N Morial Convention Center. The title of her talk? Science for a Weather-Ready Nation.

________________________________

Dr. Jane Lubchenco has served as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator since early 2009.

In a way, you could stop there. To merit that Presidential, Senate-confirmed appointment speaks volumes. The handful of NOAA leaders appointed since formation of the agency have included very distinguished natural scientists with a proven track record for management and leadership, as well as a personal integrity that will withstand the obligatory and ever more-stringent White House background check. The number of folks who have this skill set and personal history?

Vanishingly small.

Dr. Lubchenco is the first woman to hold this position.

Are you male? You might gloss over this one. But women don’t. They know all too personally the deeper significance of this brief sentence. With each such appointment they relive anew the entire history of what it’s meant to be a woman throughout the whole of human experience…the barriers, the inequities, the slights and sacrifices and reverses, and the difficult personal choices that are captured by this short phrase.  

Back to “distinguished natural scientist.” Let’s unpack that one.

Dr. Lubchenco is an ecologist and environmental scientist by education and training. She was a professor at Oregon State University for 32 years, and a professor at Harvard for two years before that.

Hmm. Pretty good. But that doesn’t begin to tell the story. There’s more. A lot more.

Scientists live and die not just by the number of papers they publish, but by the citations to their work. In Dr. Lubchenco’s case, not one, but EIGHT of her papers have been referenced so extensively that they have been included in the list of “Science-Citation Classics” by those who study such things.

Dr. Lubchenco has received numerous honors and awards.

Another inadequate shorthand. She’s been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, The Royal Society, and more. She was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 1993. [The world’s best scientists all live in hope of receiving any one of these honors. In her case, it’s the other way around. These institutions hope to gain prestige for themselves by adding her to their ranks.]

Against this backdrop it’s probably no surprise that

Dr. Lubchenco has served as a President of the Ecological Society of America.

But guess what. There’s more here too.

She has also served as the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

If you’ve ever been in academia, you know a little about interdisciplinary politics. Do you think the physicists are thrilled to see an ecologist in this seat? How about the chemists? [And so on…you get the idea]. But the AAAS is more than just another science society. It’s played an historic role in the advancement of science, and the use of science in policy, for most of our country’s history. So for Dr. Lubchenco to lead such a broad, historic enterprise is a big deal.

But that’s not all.

She has also served as the President of the International Council for Science.

The AAAS? An important, but domestic organization. Extend the same arguments now to the worldwide arena. Let the implications sink in.

Dr. Lubchenco has founded not one, but three organizations aiming to improve communication of scientific knowledge to the public, policymakers, media, and industry.

Three? Are you serious? Where does she find the time and energy to add this to her other achievements?

Ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming Dr. Jane Lubchenco.

Did you know that the American Meteorological Society’s Annual Meeting always has a theme?

Then you’re among a vanishingly small minority of the world’s seven billion people. Ask yourself…how many of those billions have ever even heard of the American Meteorological Society? In the United States, many of the tens of millions of people who watch a daily weather forecast on television are exposed to the AMS broadcast seal. Their broadcast meteorologist who’s AMS-certified may choose to display it. But any effect is subliminal at best. How many of those viewers know what the acronym AMS denotes? And how many of those know that AMS even has an Annual Meeting?

So we’re down to maybe 14,000 AMS members and their immediate families. And, AMS members, let’s face it. Even our spouses and life partners probably don’t know that the Annual Meeting has a theme. Doesn’t mean they don’t love us or aren’t interested. That’s the reality.

But the Annual Meeting theme is one of the few perks provided an AMS President. These men and women serve a four-year stint…one year as president-elect, one as president, and two as past-president. It’s four years of hard work…especially that year as president…and we’re all in their debt. How each finds the time to add to his or her day job is beyond me. Yet we’ve been fortunate, year after year, to be led and served in this way by a string of exceptional, high-minded, bright, energetic, and committed men and women. In choosing a meeting theme, AMS presidents shape a 4000-person-plus dialog, not just for the week of the meetings proper but for months of run-up to the meeting and ensuing months of follow-through. In the AMS universe, it’s a big deal.

This year’s president, Jonathan Malay, director of Civil Space and Environment Programs at Lockheed Martin, has chosen well. Look around, and you’ll find various formulations of his theme. They differ in detail, but this version, taken from the AMS Conference Program gives the flavor (and a little background):

“One of the first responsibilities faced by an incoming President of the AMS is to propose a unifying theme for the Annual Meeting, which will conclude his or her year of leadership of the Society. For Jon Malay, this process took about 10 seconds of thought. Technology has always been at the forefront of his career since one of his first meteorology professors [note added: at the U.S. Naval Academy; Jon served our country with distinction for many years] in the early 1970s taught from a textbook with the title “Computers and Satellites: The Coming Revolution in Meteorology.” His career has continually been touched along the way by that revolution. As a representative of one of the nation’s highest high-tech companies, he knows the dynamic challenges of research and operations in meteorological, hydrologic, oceanographic, heliophysical, and other related physical sciences can only be met by the development and employment of evermore sophisticated technologies. Satellite systems far overhead, seismic sensors in the ocean’s abyss, and in situ and remote sensing systems in between are providing essential data for geophysical models running on hyperfast supercomputers. Complementing these tools are advanced technologies for 4D data and simulation visualizations, data and information management and communications technology, and system of systems architectures. Because technology is vital to our research and operations, and by extension the society the AMS serves, it was a natural choice for the 2012 Annual Meeting Presidential Forum.”

Technology.

Here’s why this focus is so timely. Our generation faces a challenge unprecedented in human experience, a challenge no future generation will face. We are managing a transition from a world where people respond to the planet, to a world where the planet responds to the people.

Sobering.

But we tend to be dismayed by the prospect more than we should. There are two reasons for this. The second is for another day. But the first is this: too often, we fall into the trap of attempting to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s tools.

That makes the job look a lot tougher than it really is.

Through his choice of Annual Meeting theme, Jon invites and equips those of us here to face the future armed with the future’s technology.

And that larger world of seven billion people, who are oblivious to these goings-on? If they knew, they’d be cheering.

Our community has already begun to assemble in New Orleans for this year’s AMS Annual Meeting, which formally runs from Sunday, January 22 through Thursday, January 26. Before the last paper’s presented and the last exhibit is repacked and shipped home, maybe some 4000 people will have come through. That’s not counting the thousands of members of the general public who may show up for Sunday’s WeatherFest.

Motives for participating? They’re varied. Here’s a notional Top Ten list.

Let’s start by eliminating the one people tend to think of first. Travel to an exotic meeting site? Or the local cuisine? Fact is…it’s winter air travel, folks. Think flight delays. Jet stream turbulence. Jet lag under the best of circumstances; exhaustion under the worst. A year ago our meeting was in Seattle, where the Pacific Northwest is today struggling with a foot of snowfall in some places, power outages, massive flooding, and flight cancellations and delays. Picture our members from there trying to get here this year. Business travel is held in high regard by people who don’t have to do it.

Instead, start with:

10. Give talks. If you’re like me, this is a perennial motivator…maybe you even work for an organization that’ll fund your trip only if you can point to an accepted paper in an oral or poster session. Back when I was a federal manager in the NOAA labs I found this carrot to be a great productivity enhancer. I could count on everyone publishing several papers a year so they might go to the meetings.  

9. Hear talks. But the reality? The real reason I was happy to send them to meetings was that I knew their experience would be like mine. Every year I’d get excited about what I was doing and think it was really cool stuff. Then I’d get to the meetings and be stunned to find that everyone else had done REALLY COOL STUFF. I knew my people would come back energized from the meeting, and their subsequent work would be higher quality and more relevant because they’d have seen what their peers and colleagues were doing.

8. Spot talent and potential. As a first-level supervisor of scientists and engineers I used to love the opportunity to spot the up-and-comers. I wasn’t the only one trolling for new hires. Government, universities, private-sector – we were all on the prowl for the next-big-thing and the super stars of tomorrow.

7. Networking. We didn’t call it that years ago, but the idea was the same as it is today. For each of us, the meeting experience is like fine wine…it keeps improving with age. You never say goodbye to those contacts you made in the course of your earlier work…at each meeting, and as your work changes direction, you add contacts and connectivity, and the stimulus provided each time around goes up exponentially, factorially. Here’s a metric: each year, it takes you more time to make it down the meeting hallway. [An aside: early-career professionals find this networking shtick a tough slog, and in these days of constrained funding, they’re finding it more difficult to make the meetings themselves as well. We should all applaud the efforts of volunteers who are working to institute special functions and mentoring for young professionals.]

6. Committee work. Speaking of volunteers, over time, you get sucked in…the experience is great and you tire of being a free rider…you want to give back. You find yourself volunteering, or at least not-ducking, any one of hundreds of roles on the Society’s different journals, or specialist areas or Boards or Commissions, or program committees for a Symposium or Conference embedded within the Annual Meeting, or maybe even the AMS Council. And then the year comes when you realize you’re spending as much or more of your time in side meetings and hallway conversations as you’re spending in the technical sessions. All that volunteer effort works a palpable improvement in the quality and relevance of the sessions, the joint sessions, and many of the special features that add value to today’s meetings.

5. Exhibiting. I’ve never been an exhibitor. At each meeting the Policy Program has a desk at the AMS Resource Center, but our contributions are barely worthy of the name. But as a staffer, I’ve developed a powerful appreciation for what the exhibitors do to add value to the meeting. On the exhibits floor, the content of all those talks on satellite instruments and radar algorithms and surface sensors comes to life. Members get a flavor of the exploding variety and utility of private-sector services. And the Monday- and Wednesday evening receptions on the exhibits floor provide a venue for even more networking and informal discussion. It’s an incubator for business and ideas. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. The private sector makes significant financial contributions to the health and the spirit of the entire enterprise. If you’re enjoying a cup of coffee between sessions or a bite to eat at a committee meeting, chances are good you have a contribution from the private-sector to thank. Most of us take this for granted when we should instead be walking from booth to booth in the exhibits area thanking all those corporations and agencies who make the Society’s meetings possible and relevant.

4. International. Another dimension I’ve come to appreciate only belatedly? The special influence provided by our international members and partners. The few dozen heads of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS’s) worldwide who come to our meeting from every continent are small in number, but they punch above their weight. Their engagement reshapes the Annual Meetings fundamentally. In aggregate, they represent additional markets for products and services, and so swell the ranks and contributions of exhibitors. They attract U.S. domestic leadership – public, private, and university – to the meeting. They and the scientists who come from abroad enable a worldwide dialog.

3. WeatherFest. Why not, then, also draw in the public from the city where we’re holding the meeting? Over the past decade, we’ve started to do this, with gratifying results. Nowadays, each year on the opening Sunday of the Meeting, hundreds, if not thousands, of families and individuals from the local area drop by. They meet their broadcast meteorologists and other area personalities. They accumulate a little swag. Along the way, the kids (and maybe the occasional adult) pick up a few tidbits on weather, climate, and water. Everybody wins. An example? Picture kids getting a plate and some Play-Doh. They shape a coastal area and a coastline out of the Play-Doh. They surround that coast with water on the plate, add a few sugar cubes to simulate coastal construction. A hair dryer simulates a hurricane. The storm surge and spray damages the sugar cubes…don’t you wish you were here? Everyone has a good time, but more importantly, young people are getting jazzed about science…and about reducing disaster losses.

2. Celebrate the progress of science and technology. Step back…give yourself just a little distance from all the individual elements and myriad proceedings…and you’ll find in the sweep of what you see something to celebrate…the extraordinary pace with which our disciplines and their related technologies are advancing. The progress is far quicker than forty years ago, and continuing to accelerate. Truly exhilarating! To be part of such continuing accomplishment?  Nothing else in life compares…

Except for…

1. The best reason for being here…the application of this accumulating body of knowledge for the benefit of mankind, not just at any single meeting, but over a sustained period of years. You see, the AMS, unlike any purely scientific society, considers such application an integral part of the community’s work…not just a hoped-for side benefit. To see the natural science and the social science come together, to see their integration into decision support in agriculture, emergency management, energy, environmental protection, public health, transportation, water resource management, and much more? To be part of a close-knit, high-minded community that holds this shared value above all others and ahead of self?

Priceless.

“Assertiveness is most effective when least applied.” – Wes Fessler

“The basic difference between being assertive and being aggressive is how our words and behavior affect the rights and well-being of others.” – Sharon Anthony Bower

Do you like these quotes? Maybe you recognize the authors. I confess that I don’t at this moment. And I’m hampered in any effort to find out and share with you because Wikipedia has shut its (English-language) doors for the day[1]. Fortunately Google continues to function, though it’s temporarily superposed a censor’s blackout on its iconic logo. Makes a real statement! By clicking on that icon, I reached the following text…

___________________

“Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel. Sign this petition urging Congress to vote NO on PIPA and SOPA before it is too late.”

___________________

They also had some draft language they’re hoping we might share with our Congressional representatives. And they make it simple to do so. Just a few clicks and you’ll let (supposedly) the right people know.

All this raises a few questions…

Is the pending legislation news to you? Have you been tracking its progress for months? Or only for the last 24 hours? Does the legislation matter to you? [My guess is it does! The Internet started out as an adjunct to our lives. But today it's woven through the entire fabric of what we do.] Do you think Google and Wikipedia are right? Or wrongheaded? Are you going to take the trouble to educate yourself about the legislation fully? Write an informed note to your Senator or Representative? Or to the White House? But now let’s go beyond the substance of the issue and look at the process. What do you think about Google and Wikipedia’s advocacy approach? Does it make you more or less sympathetic to them? To their cause?

Do you and I think this will be the last time in our lives that we will hear from them in this way?

And finally, could this approach escalate? What would be the consequences if everyone behaved this way, on all issues?

As things stand now, Google has done little more than touch our arm…get our attention. Wikipedia has gone a bit further. They’re actually crimping our productivity. But just a tad, and only for a day. [And only for those who aren’t multilingual. Speak and read French or Spanish? Chinese? This isn’t going to slow you down a bit.

But the risk is…that many more of us, from every walk of life, may be tempted to copy this method, in order to get what we want.

In defense of Google, Wikipedia (and other IT firms joining in today), they haven’t invented this line of attack. [And, in their view, they've been provoked. They see this as an extraordinary measure.] In France, workers for different sectors take to the streets all the time. With the Euro in crisis, we’re seeing this in Greece and other nations as people are subjected to draconian austerity measures.

But what if Democrats tried this more with Republicans and vice versa? Climatologists and the unconvinced? Pro-life and pro-choice? Eagles and Redskins fans? Husbands and wives?

Oops.

That’s exactly what’s happening in far too many instances. And the strategy, when escalated, proves itself to be bankrupt.

As today’s quotes remind us, assertiveness only works when it’s the exception, not the rule. And when no one gets hurt.

Not everyone goes this way. In this country, the air traffic controllers tried it in the early months of the Reagan Administration. Federal workers aren’t supposed to go on strike and cripple essential services such as commercial aviation. The president beat back the strikers quickly and firmly and in the process burnished his reputation.

The community of government- and private-sector workers who maintain the continuity of Earth observations, science, and services, in order to bring you weather reports and warnings every day? They don’t do assertiveness. They just ensure your critical needs are met. The same holds true for those responsible for keeping the lights on, ensuring that every faucet and tap keeps flowing with cheap water that’s safe to drink, making sure your smartphones work, that teachers are in the schools each day for your kids, that doctors and nurses are at the ready for your medical emergency, and so on.

But in many cases, these service providers are strained to the breaking point. In these and other instances, if we don’t want them tempted to be assertive, we have to take trouble to be sensitive to their situation and needs, to provide them attention and support, not because they’re assertive…

…but because they deserve it.

Today, let’s do our bit to make to make assertiveness unnecessary. 

“All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Friday the President’s remarks on streamlining government focused on the economic agencies. But they also signaled his intent to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from its current home in the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior. The idea offers much to like but also raises concerns. Both are being expressed these days. How do you feel? Do you find yourself conflicted? That’s probably a sign of mental health.

It turns out that Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked throughout his life to improve the human condition, and whose life and accomplishments we celebrate today, had views pertinent to these challenges. His thoughts offer encouragement as you and I return to work on Tuesday morning.

Let’s start with the quote above. Dr. King reminds us that humanity’s goal is progress. It’s not simply cutting costs. If we’re doing something worthwhile, it pays to do it effectively. If we’re doing something wrongheaded, all the efficiencies in the world won’t help much. So the starting point for the administration and the Congress, for the country and the world, is this:

Are NOAA and its private-sector partners, and the community of academics and NGO’s, all those men and women and institutions collaborating with them…are they advancing our comprehension of the Earth as a resource, a victim, and a threat? And are they helping us put this understanding to good use for enduring social benefit? Are these the right problems for the country to address?

Yes.  

That suggests those responsible for the national agenda should focus on additional questions such as these: do our policies, legislation, speeches and actions foster or hinder the needed progress? Will we make our critical decisions on natural resources, the environment, and hazards wisely? In time? What risks lie ahead? What level of investment does this work merit and require, and how do we know? Arguably, our leaders should know any particular organizational location for NOAA in the end will matter little. They need to focus instead on NOAA’s relation with its partners, collaborators, and users, and the nation’s investment in this work. Is the Nation providing the sustained, uninterrupted support needed for satellites and their ground systems? For a modernized weather radar network? Are we protecting our seed corn – research – as well as maintaining the continuity of today’s services? Are we educating the young professionals we need for tomorrow’s work?

All this suggests that those favoring an administrative relocation of NOAA should remember any such shift has no value as a goal in itself. It’s at best an incidental means to a larger end. In the same spirit, those opposing a relocation shouldn’t be allowed to cast pending or real organizational change as any kind of huge obstacle. They shouldn’t use it as a pretext for slowing progress on the real issues.

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Hmm. Profound. But you know what? Our nation’s military leaders would be the first to agree with him. Time and again, in venue after venue, they speak to the links they see connecting geopolitical stability, poverty, and environmental issues. They emphasize that U.S. commitment to addressing the latter two challenges will reduce the risk of and need for armed conflict. It’s no accident that the Marshall Plan, a major international program of social uplift and one of the greatest United States legacies of the 20^th century, was promoted by our country’s leading military figure of the time. And it’s no surprise that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for this work (an honor Martin Luther King would receive a brief decade later). Again, leaders shouldn’t fantasize that a relocated NOAA will be a less expensive NOAA. 21^st century imperatives will be driving up these investments as a fraction of GDP. The good news? Such investments are not only cheaper than the military alternatives; they’ll more than repay their cost.

“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

The biggest risk posed by any federal reorganization is that it will distract all involved, both men and women, both inside and outside the affected agencies, from the real task at hand – sustainable development that deftly taps Earth’s resources, protects the environment, and provides for public safety (as framed in part by all those agency missions and the national imperatives). Transitions are a time of testing. At the same time that they call us to something higher, they tempt us to give in to our soft-minded, prone-to-anxiety, selfish side. Our civilization – our culture and values – plays a role. But in addition, we make choices each day that either strengthen us mentally and spiritually or soften us in equal measure. It’s soft-mindedness, not reorganization or the lack of it, which poses our greatest risk.

“All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Which brings us to the last of Dr. King’s observations. Do you and I work for or with NOAA? Are we engaged in the great 21^st century task of learning to live on this planet that is at one and the same time fertile but finite, richly decked out with diverse but fragile ecosystems, generally amicable but occasionally terrifying? Then let’s remember Dr. King tomorrow when we reach the office.

He saw our labor as sacred. So can we.

The sun appears to be rising in the East this morning…

… but that sliver of the world concerned with Earth observations, science and services is atwitter about a proposed NOAA move from its current home in the Department of Commerce into the Department of Interior. Google a phrase like “noaa interior department” and you’ll find some of the articles and blog posts – one from the NRDC (opposed), and one from Jason Samenow of the Capital Weather Gang (slightly positive). The latter provides abbreviated versions of the mission statements for the institutions, allowing you to match and compare. More such material will surely appear.

Of course, when sea change like this is underway, those swept along by it find it difficult to develop and maintain perspective. Sometimes it’s helpful to look back in history – or even pre-history.

Climatologists and social scientists are doing a lot of such work these days in service of a world undergoing climate change. Society asks questions: what will be the change in temperatures, precipitation patterns, and more? What will be the impact on wild and managed ecosystems? And what will be the effect on seven billion human beings? Can we accept these implications? If not, how hard should we work to head off such change or to prepare? To help answer such questions, paleo-climatologists look at climates long ago, extending back in some instances to pre-history or even to the longer geologic record. Using proxies (the carbon dioxide levels in air bubbles trapped in glacial ice cores, pollen, tree-ring data, and much more), they’re piecing together a picture of changes over past centuries and millennia. Anthropologists are examining the effect of changes over the past few thousand years on human settlement and activity.

In wondering what the future holds for NOAA, we might similarly search for clues from the past. It turns out even a quick run through snippets of that history give us a feel for what we might expect. [And if you want more authoritative background – strongly advisable! – locate and read a copy of A. Hunter Dupree’s classic Science in the Federal Government, a history of policies and activities to 1940. (1957, 1986). Or read some of James Fleming’s work. You can find more about him and about those sources listed here.]

Let’s start with one piece of today’s NOAA – meteorological services in the federal government. The earliest milestone folks usually list is the U.S. Army in the war of 1812. James Tilton was then Surgeon General. Concerned about what he saw as a link between the environment and soldiers’ health, he required his surgeons to maintain weather records so that they might be compared with the medical data.

Next stop on our whirlwind journey? The Smithsonian Institution, pre-Civil War. Back in that day you could stroll over to the Castle on the Mall and find a daily weather map, assembled by telegraph reports from across the United States. [The invention of the telegraph – the Victorian Internet – more than any scientific advance – spawned meteorological services across all the developed countries of the world during this period.] However, this service was short-lived. The Smithsonian’s Secretary, Joseph Henry, stoutly believed that with its limited resources, the Smithsonian should maintain no activity that could or should be taken up by others. The start of the Civil War interrupted the supply of data to the south and west of Washington, the source of much of our weather here. And a fire in the Castle also compromised the service.

During the Civil War, an army surgeon by the name of Albert Myer (Fort Myer bears his name) founded the Signal Service. By war’s end, Signal Service personnel numbered in the high hundreds. They were even using horse-drawn wagons bearing huge spools of wire to run telegraph lines out onto battlefield to provide needed intelligence for the Union Army. Of course, just as in today’s contemplated drawdown of forces following our hoped-for withdrawal from the Middle East, the army at that time faced cutbacks. Myer found himself, a general, with less than a dozen staff.

Awkward. He needed a new mission and found it in the reestablishment of a national weather services.  [There’s much to learn from this chapter but for now we’ll move on.]

During the 1880’s Congress grew restive with the role of science agencies in the government. They viewed them as out of control, unresponsive to the will of the Congress. They set up a special commission, under the leadership of Senator William B. Allison of Iowa, who conducted a two-year investigation. Special targets? The U.S. Geological Survey, under the leadership of John Wesley Powell, the Naval Hydrographic Office, the Survey of the Coast (do any of these names seem familiar?) – and the Signal Service. In addition, Secretary of the Army Robert Lincoln felt the Signal Service’s weather function had no business being in the military [Again there’s more nuance to this narrative.]

The outcome? Government weather services were moved from the U.S. Army into the Department of Agriculture in 1890.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Farmers’ need for weather information exceeds that for any other economic sector. [Read the 1891 organic act and you find quaint but nonetheless pointed reference to serving cotton interests…]

Or maybe only matches. The passage of time made it increasingly evident that public safety in the face of weather hazards, support for aviation and other transportation, and other national concerns merited federal emphasis. These and other drivers prompted the move of the Weather Bureau from Agriculture to Commerce in 1940, where it sits today. [We’ve paid short shrift to the development of a parent agency, NOAA, within Commerce, but the president himself alluded to that background in his remarks on Friday, and the fuller story is available to us from the oral tradition of elder employees still working in the agency. Similarly, we could have unpacked the path of other NOAA elements and found the same kind of journey.]

_________________________

What’s the take-away from all this?

There are myriad lessons, but here are just a few. First, this kind of agency mobility is nothing new, despite loud political cries and claims to the contrary. Moreover, while each such change seemed momentous, maybe even chaotic, to those participating at the time, it seems to have done the agency little lasting harm…in fact, we usually feel in hindsight that the change was good. There’s a sweet spot between instability and stifling, suffocating sameness. The task of each generation is to find it. This means you and I shouldn’t get too attached to the label: “NOAA,” or “ESSA,” or“National Weather Service,” or “Weather Bureau.” Agency names are ephemeral, and the name NOAA will be no exception.

Second? Historically, pretty much at each step (and between the steps) the NOAA mission is evolving in importance, complexity, scope, and urgency. Most especially, it is continually broadening.  This is the second lesson. NOAA and agencies like it focused on Earth observations, science, and services are necessary to national hopes and aspirations. The country demands more from these agencies with each passing year, just as we ask more from children as they pass first into adolescence and then into adulthood. If and when NOAA moves from Commerce to Interior, a merger with the United States Geological Survey probably won’t be far behind. An integrated approach to the Earth system, comprehending the atmosphere, oceans, solid earth, and ecosystems, as well as space weather, has much to recommend it.

But there’s a third, competing lesson from history. The American people have wanted this scientific capability organizationally close to the problem it’s intended to solve. Experience has shown that this closeness is tied to responsiveness. [Witness the arguments proposed over the years to move the weather research components of NOAA within the National Weather Service. And so on.] As we grow more aware that Earth observations, science and services are threaded throughout the entire national agenda, this becomes more problematic. But as the need for solutions to urgent problems across the board becomes more compelling, policymakers, journalists, and the public will grow more strident in their demands for such responsiveness.

This means we’ll see a comprehensive agency with storefronts in the customer agencies. There are already examples of this: National Weather Service employees and units embedded within the Federal Aviation Administration, and within the Department of Agriculture. We will also see a continuing effort to develop the fuller, more strategic collaborations linking the government to the private sector service providers.

_________________________

Under whatever label, from whatever organizational niche…coping with these two demands… (1) to be more comprehensive, holistic, and longer-term in approach, and (2) to be responsive to needs that are acute, highly localized, often sector-specific, and dispersed nationally and globally, will be the greatest challenge of the agency and its government- and private-sector partners.

Establishing, and then sustainably investing in such an agency, so that it can do its great work, will be one of the great 21^st-century challenges for America, its political leaders, and its people.

A week or so back my pastor and I were standing outside the church with his young daughter. I asked her… “Did you realize that you already know how to make a weather forecast for tomorrow that’s roughly 67% accurate?”

She was intrigued. “All you have to do,” I continued, “is predict that tomorrow’s weather will be like today’s. And you’ll be right 60-70% of the time.”

She grinned. Suddenly she felt empowered. You could see the wheels turning. Maybe she could try that out on her teacher…or a school friend.

Since then, my pastor and I have been toying with how we might unpack that idea a bit, and compare that with the way our spiritual lives go along…extended periods with little change…but then something happens.

That is for another day and another place. For here and for now, let’s look afresh at NOAA.

________________________

“Persistence is the best forecast.”

Are you in the meteorological world? Then you’re familiar with that idea. Problem is…whether you’re a farmer or water resource manager or air traffic controller or emergency manager, or just a member of the public going about your daily business… those exceptions to persistence are what matters. When and in what ways is the weather going to change, and what will it mean to me? The challenge for meteorologists is to beat persistence. In the same way, climate forecasters test skill by their ability to beat climatology.

What’s true for the weather is often true in the rest of our lives. We have a routine. We operate within a framework. Sometimes we call that routine a “rut.” We long to leave it. But for many purposes, that rut offers advantages, at least in the short term. [Suppose each night, every night, overnight, while you and I were sleeping, the locations of all Metro stations, bus stops, and routes were relocated…]

Let’s cut to the chase. Yesterday the President made a short speech from the White House. As the Washington Post reports, he seeks power to streamline the government. In his remarks, he noted that the power of the President to reorganize the executive branch has declined over the past century, as Congress has progressively restricted opportunities for unilateral action. But, he said (my phrasing, not his), rapid social change demands that government adapt. He signaled his desire to merge multiple federal agencies into a new department charged with overseeing all aspects of trade and investment, business and economic development, technology and innovation, and data statistics on these matters. The economy – especially small business – was his focus. But citing NOAA and Interior’s joint jurisdiction (along with other federal agencies) over salmon, he hinted at moving NOAA into the Department of Interior.

The president asserted these measures were manifestly beneficial, and non-partisan, meriting support from all sides. Politics should not be an issue. But politics has already begun to intrude (surprise!), as you can discover from logging onto whatever sites you prefer for your news. And (another shocker!), well-intentioned people actually do differ over whether these proposals are on balance good or bad.

We’ll be hearing much more about this for quite a while (after all, isn’t persistence the best forecast!).

But what do the proposed changes mean, or should they mean, for you and me? Here are some preliminary thoughts…

Most readers of this blog are in the business of Earth observations, science, and services or the use of those Earth observations and services for human benefit – to guide resource development; to protect the environment and prevent the degradation of ecosystem services; and to guard against natural hazards. And chances are good that you and I are laboring over particular small bits and pieces of this versus the big picture.

For us, yesterday’s announcement shouldn’t change that job, does it? The Earth itself didn’t reorganize. It’s still working the same way, proving to be resolutely variable locally, and globally, and on all time horizons. The proposed government reorganization doesn’t add to or subtract from our imperfect understanding of that Earth. The little bit we know, we still know. The part that remains undiscovered is still opaque. The mechanics of translating knowledge into social benefit remain absorbing. Our little piece? It still needs doing. The urgency and importance of our work continues to grow.

What about the big-picture people, the leaders, the people who bear special burden for the way the bits and pieces come together? They operate at the interfaces that separate the natural- and social scientific disciplines, the sciences from the services, the services from the end use, and so on. Their (your? our?) job is communicating, and connecting, and collaborating in this space, linking government agencies with one another, partnering government at all levels with the private sector and academia, working across international boundaries.

Surely this changes everything for them?

Not really. Those tasks were ongoing yesterday and the day before that. The people involved are the same. The only element missing is that “rut” factor. Today, every one of those established relationships is potentially fresh and new. But come to think of it, that should have been true all along. There’s a parallel in any marriage or life partnership. The great marriages are those that are reinvigorated and transformed every day, in little and big ways. If we had been taking things for granted before, we shouldn’t have been.  What’s more, when it comes to the Earth sciences and science-based services, all of us are in the business of change. And those in the business of change cannot be immune to its consequences.

________________________

It’s the weekend. A good time for self-examination, for reappraisal.

So, in closing for today, here’s a litmus test you can give you and I can give ourselves. Ask…am I putting the interests of others ahead of my own? Then the prospect of any change here doesn’t threaten me. Quite the opposite, it’s energizing, no matter how things eventually turn out. By contrast…do I feel tense, anxious, threatened, nervous, stressed by this organizational change or the prospect of it? Then chances are good I’m thinking largely of my self-preservation. Worse…I’m not dwelling on my truest self-interest (peace of mind, contentment, challenge, purpose, joy…). Instead, I’m obsessed with terrible, narrow, self-destructive mis-directed little subset that defines my self-interest only in terms of my title or position, or the number of my direct reports, or the grade level of my next job, or some impoverished idea about the source of my security.

If each of us individually works through this, we’ll be glad we did.

In the next post…a look back…what history has to say about NOAA’s prospects – and ours.

Thirty years ago to the day I was still working for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), and stationed in Boulder. A gaggle of us were back here in DC for an OAR management retreat. It was the final day, snowing to beat the band, and we couldn’t wait to get home.

One of my colleagues, Hugo Bezdek, who at that time directed NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) in Miami, Florida, was held up getting to National Airport. A fatal Metro accident had snarled up surface transportation across the system. Hugo missed his flight.

That flight he missed? Air Florida 90, which crashed on takeoff into the 14^th Street Bridge and plunged into the icy Potomac.

Of the 83 people on board, 78 died. Today’s Washington Post carries the story. [Actually, it carries several stories. Once you reach and have read the first link, click on the photo gallery. It’s sobering – chilling, actually – but it gives us less excuse to trivialize this tragedy. Helps bring the pain and fear and loss home a little bit, and gives a glimpse into some of the heroism displayed that day. Another companion piece follows up on the handful of survivors.]

But the main point, as captured by the lead article? The loss of those 78 souls was not in vain. Investigation of the causes for the crash was extensive and thorough. The root problem was icing on the frame, wings, and engines of the aircraft. Ice not only adds weight but reduces the lift of the aircraft, with fatal results. The plane had been de-iced, but then stood on the ramp perhaps forty minutes or so before attempting takeoff.

But the investigators didn’t stop there. This was the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – in the business of identifying all the root- and contributing causes of every crash and near-crash, and issuing comprehensive findings and recommendations. The NTSB noted that the pilots failed to de-ice the engines. They relied overmuch on aircraft instruments that had been clogged by ice and were no longer giving meaningful readings. They had little experience with ice. Today, the NTSB recommendations have been adopted and are in force. All pilots receive more and better training on this threat. They follow strict procedures and protocols for every takeoff where icing conditions exist. The chemicals used for de-icing the planes are more effective.

You get the idea. We learned from experience.

The Washington Post carried another article this week – on the Haitian recovery from the earthquake of two years ago.

Take a moment to compare with the airline crash. On January 12, 2010, that magnitude 7.0 quake killed over 300,000 people. It left a comparable number injured, and 1,000,000 homeless. The social scientist Paul Slovic tells us we’re numbed by figures like this…they lose their ability to horrify. They become mere statistics to us. They’re no longer people, with real lives and hopes and aspirations cut short. So for comparison, imagine that 78 people died in the Potomac from a plane crash every four hours, every day. It would take almost 4000 such plane crashes – two years of such four-hourly crashes – to match what happened in a few hours that day in Haiti.

The Washington Post article on this two-year anniversary was not quite so upbeat. Some 500,000 people still live in shelters. The recovery process is agonizingly slow. It mirrors what we’ve seen in New Orleans in the six-plus years since Katrina and what we’re seeing in Japan in the months since the great Tohoku earthquake and tsunami.

Part of the problem is one of scale. But the other part is the bit of learning from experience – a topic of numerous posts on this blog. In each of these cinstances, we’re largely rebuilding as before.

We lack an NTSB analog for so-called natural disasters (which are as much a function of human decisions and actions as their aviation counterparts. As my colleague Gina Eosco and I have argued, we need such a Board for natural disasters. Right now, nothing along those lines is in the works. But it could be. This single, simple, sensible, inexpensive national and international action could transform our world’s posture toward natural hazards.

On the 30^th anniversary of Katrina, the Haitian earthquake, and the great Tohoku earthquake, will journalists be able to report that people are safer going forward?