Weather’s 101st moment.

We each have our moments.

As it is with humanity, the same holds true for the weather. This week, weather celebrates its 101st moment – the release of Andy Revkin and Lisa Mechaley’s collaboration, Weather, an Illustrated History: From Cloud Atlases to Climate Change. The book chronicles, in crisp text and art, a series of vignettes on weather’s top 100 moments, spanning nearly five billion years.

A great read – fanciful and fun – and at the same time profound and thought-provoking.

We’re reminded that the Earth’s first order of business (moment#1) was cloaking itself in an atmosphere, and as soon as possible (moment#2), adding water. Takes a while, but eventually (moment#11), weather gains a human audience, and that audience is literally moved by the experience (100,000 BCE Climate Pulse Propels Populations). It’s not long before the audience enters the action (moment#15); agriculture warms the planet ca. 5,000BCE.

Keep reading (actually the path of least resistance – the experience is not unlike that encounter with a bowl of popcorn – it’s easier to keep going than to stop)! You’ll find all your favorites. The great atmospheric events – medieval warmth and the little ice age, cooling in response to volcanic eruptions, great hurricanes and storms, awesome floods, and more. The great human accomplishments – weighing the atmosphere, deciphering the rainbow, harnessing wind power, making useful forecasts, modifying the weather, and laying the foundation for geoengineering. The unintended human consequences, starting with that agriculturally-triggered warming, extending to acquired vulnerability to extreme weather and solar storms, the current global warming, Arctic sea-ice retreat (moment#97), and coral reef die-offs (moment#99). A closing conjecture about an end to the ice ages (moment#100) responsible for so many of the first 99 moments.

It’s all there – and more.

The book is a page turner. Savor the experience. But don’t fool yourself. Weather: an Illustrated History is no mere inventory. What elevates it to moment #101? Just this: Revkin and Mechaley have framed the early chapters of a suspense thriller.  Will humanity, now a major actor on the world stage – be the hero or the villain of the piece? Will we consciously comprehend the growing impacts of our acquisition of natural resources, our efforts to cope with hazards, and our unthinking environmental despoliation? Will that awareness drive us to harness our new technological capabilities and social networking tools with will and vision sufficient to change our current course, making it more sustainable?  Most fundamentally, can seven billion of us master our common spiritual challenge? That is, can we overcome our tendencies to resent, factionalize, and polarize, and instead build the trust, the vision, and the common purpose we need to move forward?

So – buy and read the book! You’ll be glad you did. But don’t stop there. Let the experience carry you forward; take another step toward personally creating or identifying  weather-moment #102. Play your part in moving that and the succeeding moments, yet to come, in a positive direction.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ECLA!

AMS Early Career Leadership Academy (ECLA) holds two days of face-to-face sessions this week. From the looks of the final agenda, the event promises to be life-changing for the participants. Kudos to the sponsors and program organizers… you’ve set something powerful into motion!

A small contribution to the occasion (akin to the party-favor you might find by your place setting), this in the form of a question for each participant:

How might I make better use of questions in my life?

Okay, Bill: here’s a question for you… what on Earth do questions have to do with leadership?

Well, it turns out that management/leadership experts seem to agree that leaders make important contributions to their organization or community by asking questions.

Also happens, though, that the same gurus differ widely in their suggested framing of those questions. Consider these two examples:

Example 1:

  1. Is there a simpler solution or simpler way of doing this?
  2. Can you explain the solution to me?
  3. What should we stop doing?
  4. Is this urgent or important?
  5. Do you think our approach will be successful?

Example 2:

  1. What does success look like?
  2. What’s holding us back?
  3. Who has experience with this?
  4. What’s the climate here?
  5. What if this setback is really an opportunity in disguise?
  6. What hasn’t been achieved yet?

These weren’t chosen randomly; they just happened to be the first two that popped up on a google search. You can take a look for yourself and uncover millions (literally) of alternative question sets. Perhaps you see elements in these two (or some other) lists to admire; more likely you quickly start seeing ways they can be improved upon. Perhaps they seem too bland, or generic… or just slightly misdirected…

That’s the point. You don’t want to adopt someone else’s list; you want to formulate your own.

Do this with some care and thought. Craft an initial set and then revisit and refine it from time to time. Over a period of years, you’ll realize you’ve created a guide, a lodestone, a compass (insert your own metaphor here) that is helping you set the course of your life’s work – equipping  you to distinguish between what’s vital and enduring and what’s merely urgent and fleeting, between what matters and what’s irrelevant; to tell the difference between opportunity and distraction.

Wouldn’t ask you to do anything I haven’t done myself, so here’s…

Example 3:

My list of questions appears on the masthead of Living on the Real World. First formulated these thirty years ago, listening to conversations at the nascent stages of what is today’s full-throated climate-change debate, discussions of sustainability, and related issues. Had the naïve/grandiose idea that they’d make a great frame for a worldwide conversation to celebrate the run-up to the millennium – the year 2000.

We all know that didn’t happen!

More recently (and with humbler aspirations), in 2010, they seemed to provide a useful frame for the blog.

What kind of world is likely if we take no deliberate action? This is a science question – not just an Earth sciences question, but rather one that has three dimensions. Where is the natural world – the world of resources, extremes, landscape, environment, biomass and biodiversity – trending?  In what ways is it degrading? I what respects might it be becoming more robust? What about the social world – the world of seven+ billion people? Are we growing more urbanized? Richer or poorer? Equitable or unfair? Peaceful or fractious?  And finally what about our spiritual world? Are we suppressing our spiritual side, or allowing it to flower? Do we celebrate its diversity, or do we all tend to shoehorn it into something narrow, monochromatic?

What kind of world do we want? This is a social question, a societal question, a question for everyone, not just for scientists. The question clearly has no answer, yet it deserves ongoing attention. That emphasis extends to figuring out how we engage each other on this issue. How do we keep discussion from morphing into debate, and debate from degrading into polarization and dysfunction? And keep in mind this question also has the same three dimensions: what kind of “natural” world do we want? What kind of social world would be desirable? What kind of spiritual world suits?

(A google search doesn’t back this up but) I was once told that George Bernard Shaw said, “if you have everything you want, you might as well be dead.”  So, we’re not likely to ever “get what we want.” This will always be a journey. That brings us to the third question:

What kind of world is possible if we act effectively?  What’s achievable? What represents a step or steps in the right direction? What can I, or my community, or my organization, do next? How do I translate thought into action?

Regardless of your background, somewhere along the line a teacher or professor asked you to write a paper or thesis, and asked you to start with some articulation of “what question am I trying to answer?” That wasn’t just an idle academic exercise. The teacher was trying to equip you for life… for life as a leader. So, if you’re an ECLA participant and have already framed such questions as a guide to living and leading, use this ECLA event as a chance to reexamine them, refresh them. If you haven’t got a pre-existing list, develop a prototype list while you’re here.

Even if you’re well past the ECLA stage, or not directly involved (remember, seven billion people fall into this category) give your life questions another look, and in the process make your day and your relationships and your work just that much more meaningful and effective.

And remember, it’s not just about you. When you do this, you make life better for the rest of us as well. Thank you!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The 2018 March for… and the Sustainability of … Science.

Scientists are appropriately focused on the sustainability of science: will it continue to prove useful and beneficial to society? Will society continue to support science?

Which brings us to the March for Science.

On April 14, if history runs true to form, thousands of scientists around the world, and an even larger number of supporters of science, will take to the streets in a second March for Science. Weather forecasts for that day are just coming into view. As of this writing, in Washington DC, the outlook is for fair and warm; a far cry from last year’s cold and rain.

Marking the occasion, this past Thursday, the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communicationmade public the findings from its survey of participants and followers in the 2017 March. Whether you’re preparing to join this year’s March or not, the survey results make useful reading.

(Substantive? Interesting? Evidence-based versus conjectural? Facts versus spin? These signature traits mark the work of 4C, as the George Mason researchers refer to themselves. Their stated goal?To develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change.Under the leadership of its director, Ed Maibach, the Center has developed a reputation for insightful studies and reports over an extended period of years.)

Here are the 2017 March survey key findings, reproduced verbatim:

  • Roughly 7 out of 10 survey respondents said they participated in a March for Science in person on April 22, 2017; about one third (32%) attended the main march in Washington, DC.
  • Although most had participated in a march or demonstration before (71%), for many, the March for Science was their first science-related demonstration (88%).
  • A majority (61%) felt that, in their country, conditions for scientists are headed in the wrong direction. Respondents in the United States assigned most blame for this to Republicans in Congress (93% said they deserve “all” or “a lot” of the blame) and Donald Trump (90% said “all” or “a lot”).
  • The most common concerns expressed by participants in the United States were: the current Congress and administration would make harmful reductions in the use of scientific evidence in government decision making (91%); cuts in government funding for research (90%); and reductions in access to government data for scientific research (81%).
  • Participants expressed many goals that they held for the March for Science. The two most commonly cited goals were “increasing evidence based input into policy making” (89% selected this as a goal, and 38% selected it as their most important goal), and “sustaining public funding of science” (88% and 20%, respectively).
  • Despite these aspirations, only about half of participants thought the march would be at least moderately effective at increasing evidence based input into policy making (46%), and at sustaining public funding for science (52%).
  • Majorities of participants in the United States said they thought the response to the march was positive among scientists (91%), Democrats in Congress (79%), the news media (70%), and the American public (55%). However, majorities also thought that Donald Trump (68%) and Republicans in Congress (64%) had a negative response to the march.
  • Nearly all participants said they were taking a variety of other advocacy actions to advance the goals that brought them to participate in the march, including discussing science-related issues with their family and friends (97%), contacting government officials (83%), attending another march or demonstration (80%), donating money to a scientific or political organization (78%), and discussing science-related issues online (73%).
  • Most participants felt that a number of actions would be effective at reducing harm to science from the current Congress and the president, if many people do them. The action seen as most effective was donating money to a scientific or political organization (84% perceived it as at least moderately effective), followed by contacting government officials (78%), engaging with the media (76%), attending a march or public demonstration (72%), discussing science-related issues with their friends and family (70%), and discussing science-related issues online (58%).
  • About half of participants (51%) viewed scientists as either a “somewhat” (44%) or “heavily” (8%) politically liberal group, whereas most of the other half (47%) see scientists neither liberal nor conservative in particular. Very few participants (2%) saw scientists as a “somewhat” (2%) or “heavily” (<1%) politically conservative group.
  • Only about one in six (17%) participants said that the political leaning of scientists hurts their ability to be objective. However, two out of three (66%) said that the political leaning of scientists makes it more difficult for people of another party to believe them.

You now have a flavor for the survey and the scholarship – but if you have the time, please read the entire report. There’s much more to be mined from the details of the 4C summary.

To recap, and distill down even further:

Respondents from the United States largely shared a view that conditions for scientists are headed in the wrong direction, and that one party was largely to blame[1]. Nearly 90% of participants were looking to see increased evidence-based input into policymaking, and sustained support for science. However, only half the participants figured the March itself would be effective toward these same ends.  Most figured one political party would view the March favorably; the other negatively. They viewed scientists as either politically liberal or politically neutral as a group as opposed to conservative. For the most part they didn’t see this as hurting their ability to be objective, but two-thirds thought this made it more difficult for people of a different political persuasion to believe them.

In a nutshell: March participants want increased evidence-based policymaking and support for science. They see the chances that the March will change minds as no better than 50-50. In fact they believe that conservatives (political leaders and general public) will see this as a poke in the eye.

Given this evidence-based social science, what should scientists do?

Science can’t be sustainable if only half of  Americans support it. In light of the 4C survey data, it follows the March ought to be substantially positive in tone and impact, across any partisan divide, OR it should be a miniscule, nearly invisible piece of scientists’ engagement with policymakers and the public. If it’s going to express a political message then it should be accompanied, even overwhelmed, by a rich, ongoing relationship that looks far more like collaboration – or even courtship– than confrontation.

The latter is in fact the reality. To start, US scientists wake up every morning to focus on the day job. Research: pushing back the frontiers of our basic understanding of how the natural world works, as well as the social science of how seven billion people think and engage socially with each other. Service: applying this understanding to technological advance; partnering up with individuals, corporations, and nations to build a safer, healthier, richer, more satisfying life for all, while preserving the web of ecosystems and natural resources that sustain us. Teaching: sharing the excitement of science with young people and inspiring them to join in. Scientists are providing an extraordinary return on society’s $100B+  investment.

And when scientists dialog with policymakers, the majority (?), certainly the effective bits, of the communications are characterized by respect, by two-way listening and learning as much as talking, by clarity but also by accommodation.

We know all this in part because the 2018 federal budgets for science were generally positive, exceeding substantially the initial administration requests… and these budgets were passed by majorities of both chambers of Congress, and signed by the president. Support continues to be widespread and bipartisan.

We want things to stay that way.

My dad, himself a scientist and a manager of scientists, always said to my brother and me: make your compliments public and keep your criticisms private.

So, this coming Saturday, as we prepare to join the March, and make clever signage, and join in any chanting, or model desired behavior for the kids we brought along, or perhaps even make a speech…

… let’s think like scientists – be (4C) evidence-based in our approach to the audience we’re trying to cultivate and persuade. Let’s defuse the confrontation and accentuate the celebration.

Let’s do our bit to make, and keep, science sustainable.

_______________________________________

[1]Incidentally, the survey also noted in the body of the report that only a minority (roughly a quarter) of scientists thought they shared some of the blame as well. Non-scientist participants in the March viewed scientists more favorably.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Meteorology: Where do we go from here?

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!” – Martin Luther King, Jr.,  (from his last speech, I’ve been to the Mountaintop, April 3, 1968)

Today, April 4, marks fifty years since the tragic assassination of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. As part of its commemoration of the event, Memphis held a two-day symposium April 2-3 asking the question: where do we go from here? Unsurprisingly, participants arrived knowing that despite progress over the ensuing half-century, much more remained to be done. They decided that the path forward lies in a rededication to those causes Dr. King espoused: racial equality; reduction of poverty; greater economic equity; better education for all; and more. Time to enter, not just view, the promised land.

Today, meteorologists, and their close kin hydrologists, oceanographers, climatologists, Earth and space scientists, could well ask the same question. Although the particulars include many arcane scientific and technological bits, much of “where do we go from here” is aligned with Dr. King’s broader themes.

Inclusion is a major AMS concern and goal. With the transition in the meteorological profession from forecasts of geophysical conditions per se to impact-based decision support, meteorologists, whether researchers or service providers, find themselves drawn in not just to the social dimensions of their work but also a continuing need to translate “protection of life and property” and “economic development” into both public good and private interest. The act of balancing these two needs changes and grows more challenging with each scientific and technological advance and the unintended consequences for shifts in private and public provision of weather services. Underpinning the prospects for managing these challenges is the state of American public education, especially critical thinking and STEM education. Weather extremes – hurricanes, winter storms, floods, and other natural phenomena – are portal drawing young Americans into scientific fields more broadly.

The value of meteorology to society, but, more importantly, the connection of meteorology to American values?

Worth some reflection today. If as a meteorological community, we model inclusion; through continuing innovation foster public good as well as private interest; and do our bit for STEM education; we can help America and the world toward a more sustainable, vibrant, satisfying and meaningful future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Congress appropriates science funding for FY 2018.

___________________________________________________________

[Jesus asked] “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

 “The first,” they answered. – Matthew 21:28-31 (NIV)

___________________________________________________________

Last week, the president signed the final 2018 appropriations bill passed by the Congress. Debate over specifics of the bill had riveted public attention for some time; almost every American found some of the bits likable, other aspects less so.

If you happen to be a scientist, though, looking at the budget through that narrow lens, the final numbers appeared quite a bit better than you might have feared. The starting point of the proposed budget and potential for cutbacks to specific agencies, programs, and subject matter had been cause for concern, right up until the end.

But, again for scientists, that end proved generally positive. FYI[1], the American Institute of Physics’ science policy newsletter, even went so far as to label the result a windfall for science. Their figure, reproduced above, shows the results for several agencies.

Congress went home for a scheduled (and undoubtedly welcome!) Easter-Passover break.

The budget, and its coincident seasonal timing, calls to mind a discussion that Jesus had with Pharisees and other religious leaders, recorded during a similar run-up to Passover some 2000 years ago. A piece of that conversation opens this post. The chief priests and elders – the establishment – were questioning his authority; he in turn noted their hypocrisy, especially evident compared with the faith he found in the underserved and disenfranchised of that day – tax collectors, prostitutes, et al.

As part of the back-and-forth, this well-known parable.

One question we might ask is this: focusing solely on the science element of the 2018 budget, which son was the Congress in this parable?

The first.

This matters. Congressional support for science budgets holds many positive implications for the world’s future prospects, and for America’s place in that world. Innovation is the key to greater economic prosperity; more sustainable use of food, water, and energy resources; reduction in world poverty; resilience to hazards; and protection of the environment; and so much more. And America, representing 4% of world’s population but 20% or more of its consumption, necessarily shoulders a big and globally visible responsibility for moving things forward. The competition for innovation, and the corresponding competition for people’s hearts and minds, is the big story of the 21st century.

In the face of this, how might scientists conduct ourselves? Well, we might start by expressing thanks to Congress and the American people, for one. We might redouble our efforts to advance knowledge and understanding, with a sense of urgency derived not merely from a desire for personal gain or reputation, but with an eye to its greater societal benefit. (After all, society is footing the bill… and major portions of the society paying for our work are not so well off as scientists as a class.) We might communicate and celebrate those benefits with those around us.

Why bring this up now, Bill?

Here’s why. While our gratitude, sense of urgency, and commitment to public well-being ought to be ongoing, one moment is coming up where what we scientists think as a group will be especially visible and on full display: the March for Science, scheduled for April 14.

In view of this show of bipartisan Congressional understanding of the importance of science and corresponding support, it would be inappropriate to come across in April as ungrateful, self-centered, or politically partisan – to bite the hand of the Congress and public who feed us.

Now of course the national need for science and innovation doesn’t end with the budget. Immigration policy, STEM education, energy, hazards, and environmental policy, the need to refurbish U.S. critical infrastructure, even free trade and more all hold the potential for fostering science and its application if done well and inhibit progress if mishandled. The use of science in decision making with respect to climate change, genetically modified organisms, vaccinations, and much more could stand improvement. So the conversation isn’t over; the listening and persuading isn’t done. But the support for science budgets signals bipartisan willingness to engage these other issues in the science context.

We ought to welcome and seize that opportunity. In practice, good will reigns. Congress showed up for work in the science vineyard. The March for Science optimally would reflect a similar positive, non-partisan note on our part.

To see the importance of this, reflect on the contrast with another issue, and with another march: gun control. With children, singly or in groups, losing their lives to guns every day, there’s real reason for grave concern. Hence the outpouring of protest in last weekend’s March for Our Lives.

We might all do well to reflect on both Marches – their similarities and differences  – in preparing for April 14. In the meantime, enjoy and celebrate Passover/Easter, however you may observe it.

_____________

[1] Not familiar with this publication? You might want to be. Crisp, insightful, timely reporting on issues and events that matter to physical scientists across a broad spectrum. One of many benefits AIP provides its member societies, their members, and the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AMS Workshop on Forecasts and Water Resource Management.

This coming Tuesday-Wednesday, April 3-4, the American Meteorological Society is holding a workshop here in Washington, DC on Translating Advances in Forecasting to Inform Water Resources Management.

You don’t want to miss it. You do want to register.

Here’s why.

The topic matters. If your expertise lies in Earth observations, science, and services, there’s no greater intrinsic challenge than the meteorology and hydrology needed to forecast water availability. And there’s no more important application for such knowledge than managing Earth’s water resources on local, national, and global scales, over both the short term and the long range – ensuring that water supplies remain ample, uninterruptible, potable, and cheap. If you want meaningful life and work, devote yourself to this cause.

Then there’s the checkered history of weather/water forecasts per se. In 2003, Steve Rayner, Denise Lach, Helen Ingram, and Mark Houck wrote a seminal paper under the challenging title Weather Forecasts are for Wimps: Why Water Resource Managers don’t Use Climate Forecasts[1]. The authors compared management practices for three U.S. watersheds: the Columbia, Colorado, and Potomac Rivers. They found that dam operators made decisions to release or hold water solely based on existing water levels behind the dam, without any reference to weather outlooks indicating wet or dry conditions over ensuing periods (with emphasis on seasonal to inter-annual implications of ENSO forecasts). Simply put, the forecast skill had been deemed below that threshold needed to improve management practice.

But that was fifteen years ago. Predictions of precipitation extremes have improved since then, on all timescales extending from a few days out to seasons. And Congress has called for augmented research focus and further innovation in Title 2 of Public Law 115-25 (also known as the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017). This raises questions:

What’s the usage of state-of-the-art forecasts in water resource management today? How might forecasts be made more useful? Can decision processes take better advantage of existing forecasts? How do we expect forecasts to improve? Workshop participants will tackle these and other questions related to improvement of the physical forecasts.

But that’s only one piece of the puzzle.

The forecast aspect is matched by the policy opportunities and challenges. State and local jurisdictional boundaries only partially respect watershed geographies, and even when they do it’s often to create competing jurisdictions on opposite riverbanks. Downstream needs and interests conflict with upstream demands and concerns. Federal responsibilities apportioned among USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA and other federal agencies overlay state and local purview in complex ways. Each water-resource player engages diverse publics in the pursuit of different blends of basic goals – public health and safety, economic development, hazard mitigation, environmental protection. As a result, water availability at any point in the watershed and at any given time depends as much on the aggregated human decisions as on the recent precipitation history.

The management problem is thus so complex that water resource managers rely heavily on policies and regulatory frameworks, often put in place a century or so ago, when water demands were so small compared with natural flows and supplies that any science was rudimentary and (fortunately) muddle-through strategies were adequate. Today, margin for error is smaller, and the stakes are higher. This raises a second set of questions:

How might policies be evaluated? Improved?  How can policies at local, state, and federal levels be made more consistent? As forecasts improve, how might policies be made more adaptive, able to capitalize on the opportunities – and mitigate the threats – imposed by weather and climate variability on all scales?

Game-changing technologies are coming on line. Water-resource managers of the future will enjoy observing platforms and instruments of unprecedented diagnostic power for monitoring and assessing water resources, and aiding decisions. And the technological opportunities don’t end there. New computing capacity, data analytics, and even artificial intelligence greatly expand the opportunity for improving forecasts – not just of the (geo)physical system but the coupled natural-human system behavior – and thus optimizing outcomes. And new facilities such as the National Water Center will serve as incubators for the needed innovation. This raises the third set of questions:

How best to harness such new technologies? And get them working together? Can we go beyond a Weather-Ready Nation to build a Water-Ready one?

At the workshop’s conclusion, those interested can adjourn to a Hill briefing the afternoon of April 4, in the Congressional Visitors Center that will bring Workshop conclusions to interested Congressional staffers – while findings are fresh in minds. What happens at the Workshop doesn’t stay at the Workshop.

Water resource management. Both a defining scientific topic and an existential societal concern. A diverse roomful of experts spanning the full range of relevant perspectives. At a pivotal point in the science and its application for the benefit of life. In the city where science meets society, and where critical infrastructure is the topic of the day. Only one way to improve on things:

Your active involvement at every phase.

Please join us.

__________

[1] The report has appeared in multiple formats. The 2003 report to NOAA is available in pdf form here. A version also appeared in the April 2005 issue of Climatic Change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When your autonomous vehicle goes autocratic.

The March3-9 print edition of The Economist had a great special report on autonomous vehicles. Actually “great” as a modifier to Economist special article is redundant; all their reports are worth the read and this one was no exception. Tom Standage does a masterful job of driving the reader through the future landscape of such vehicles, suggesting they’ll change the world as the automobile itself has done over the century just past. He explores the technical issues; the emerging competition among carmakers, IT leaders, startups, and ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft; the awkward aspects of the transition period we’re entering; and much more.

That “much more” includes an inventory of foreseen and unforeseen consequences: reductions in deaths and injuries (and reductions in organ donations); reductions in congestion and the need for urban parking acreage, associated with the rise of ride-sharing; the commercial world arriving at our doorsteps; cars that could be reshaped and outfitted as workout platforms, beauty salons, etc.; and additional infringements on privacy; possible new forms of segregation, reduced access and much more.

The report even acknowledges that meteorology, especially snowfall (blanketing lane markers and other features helpful to onboard computers busily identifying automobile position) poses challenges that have yet to be addressed.

A lot to process!

As thorough as the report is, however, it suffers from a blind spot – the same human blind spot that shapes our policies for dealing with weather hazards. That blind spot? A failure to learn from experience (following the aviation industry), and a reliance on emergency evacuation in the face of weather hazard as opposed to vigorous attention to land use and building codes that would make home the safest place to be, and shelter-in-place the preferred hazard response.

Here are three realities (or social preferences, whichever nomenclature you prefer). First, the transition to autonomous vehicles will occur on a time scale short compared with the lifetime of the nation’s building stock. That is, we will find ourselves in Autonomous Vehicle World before it will be safe to shelter in place, no matter how vigorously we might move to replace or retrofit building stocks with something safer. As a future hurricane approaches shore, thousands/millions of people in the path will still need to evacuate.

Second, current emergency response favors “mandatory” evacuation not just because of the short-term physical hazard posed to people in harm’s way, but also because an empty city is easier to manage during extreme weather than one teeming with people all facing a variety of special needs (for food, water power; emergency medical attention; protection from looters, etc.) Artificial intelligence will make it technically possible for emergency managers to do this. They might in principle take over control of vehicles during evacuations; ensure that vehicles don’t evacuate with only a single driver, but also pick up a couple of others who might need a ride, etc.

This concern might seem fanciful (“Americans would never allow such an infringement on their basic liberties”) but for the fact that autonomous vehicles are likely to be accompanied by widespread, nearly universal ridesharing, and a substantial drop in the number of vehicles on the road and a change in the ownership of those vehicles. Facing a need to evacuate, what will be the pricing structure for ridesharing vehicles? Barring regulation, what is to prevent the price-gouging already visible during peak commuter traffic, or evident in home and building repairs following a natural disaster, such as one of the hurricanes or wildfires the U.S. suffered during autumn of 2017? Will price and ability to pay alone determine access to vehicles? What are the implications for social equity in this arrangement? Would access instead be first-come, first-served? That has drawbacks too. Will ridesharing vehicles be commandeered to dump passengers off at nearby shelters (versus, say, a more distant home of a family member) to allow return visits to the hazard zone?

The Economist report suggests we’ll be better off individually and as a society to the extent we work out these and related policy issues in advance, versus belatedly discovering problems in the aftermath of a crisis.

It’s not too soon to begin thinking these problems through. Perhaps the process might spur efforts to build resilience in the built environment and critical infrastructure.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

“War” is in the air. WWCPD?

WWCPD… what would Colin Powell do?

There’s war in the air these days. The U.S. and Korea are at loggerheads. With great fanfare, Putin brags that Russia is developing nuclear arms able to avoid missile defenses. China is rapidly building and deploying its military, projecting power throughout the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, with one eye on the Arctic. Syria has attracted warriors from Turkey, Iran, Russia, and the U.S. in a particularly combustible mix. Pockets of conflict burn across the African continent.

The language of war has penetrated everyday discourse. Financial markets worldwide have been fidgety at the prospect of tariffs and “trade wars.”  There’s a “war” over gun-control. Then there’s immigration. Attorney General Sessions grumbles about sanctuary cities, and California’s Governor Jerry Brown has responded by saying the Trump administration was declaring war against the state.

This brings us to the war on science. For instance, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education (unfortunately not accessible without a subscription), Steven Pinker has decried an intellectual war on science he says is wreaking havoc on research. (The article has prompted some publicly accessible commentary; here’s one example.)  Climate change denial  is framed as a war on humanity. Scientists appear to be entering the 2018 political arena in record numbers, “to combat the war on science.”

As individuals and as a species we’re pugnacious – quick to see a fight or pick one – and especially quick to use the rhetoric of war.

What could possibly go wrong?

Interesting that the folks most familiar with war and its horrors should be the most measured in the use of such language and the most reluctant to engage – the military. The military know that war should only be entered as a last resort, after all alternatives have been exhausted. This seemingly counter-intuitive bent has always been around, but it was articulated with special poignancy by Colin Powell prior to the first Persian Gulf War[1], in eight famous points now known as the Powell Doctrine:

The Powell Doctrine offers a list of questions that all should be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

As a corollary, Powell also argued that once embarking on a war a nation should use all its resources to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate. Implicit in this, especially the word capitulate, is the idea a nation goes to war or uses the rhetoric of war only against actual enemies, not just people with whom it might normally collaborate but with whom it’s currently estranged or in disagreement.

The application of the eight questions to war itself is clear enough, but in our polarized, fractious society of today, perhaps we’d all do well to ask whether we might think them through more generally and thoroughly before entering confrontation over policy or even scientific debate. In those contexts, we might ask:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? Or are we making a mountain of a molehill?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective? Something a bit nobler than “winning” an argument?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? This answer is hardly ever “yes.”
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Again, the answer is rarely “yes.”
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Or will hard feelings endure?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Highly unlikely. After needed further  consideration – we should revisit (3.)
  7. Is the action supported by the American people? We should be hesitant, humble answering this one. Scientists in particular should avoid appearing entitled.
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support? Or – are we simply damaging our/America’s reputation?

Going a step further: implicitly, we all ask ourselves questions similar to these when engaging our spouses/life partners/parents/kids. If we choose to go to war at home, we’re usually using it as an excuse/pretext for busting up the relationship.

Note that according to Powell, all these questions should be answered affirmatively before going to war. A meteorological parallel: when I worked for NOAA in our Boulder laboratories, one of my colleagues was a wonderful meteorologist and great human being by the name of Charlie Chappell. His work spanned both cutting-edge research and operational practice. He used to say that “for the atmosphere to generate a tornado, seven conditions must be met. A lot of meteorologists become excited when they see six conditions satisfied, and they issue a warning that turns out to be a false alarm. All seven conditions have to be met.”

So, next time out, before we go to war verbally, or take to the streets in protest, let’s stop and consider whether we’ve thought things through, what we’re hoping to gain, Chances are good that if we’re as creative in thinking about alternative peaceable means as we choose to be about “waging war,” we’ll “give peace (another) chance.”

As we support our fellow scientists who are running for political office, or as we run for office ourselves, let’s engage in a positive spirit about both the process and the ends of politics. Let’s do it not thinking the political process would be improved by putting more scientists in charge so much as aspiring to put ourselves to work for public benefit.

And everyone – all parties, and the watching world – will be the better for it.

____________________________________

[1] reflecting the bitter U.S. experience in Vietnam,

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

more on …the AMS journal Weather, Climate, and Society

 

ten years of environmental intelligence inside

Yesterday’s LOTRW post spoke to ten years of steady growth at the AMS journal Weather, Climate, and Society. But what matters most is not the age or the size… it’s the quality and breadth of the content. A sampling from Volume 10, Number 1 (all this and more is available online[1]):

Expressing Flood Likelihood: Return Period versus Probability

Margaret A. Grounds, Jared E. LeClerc, and Susan Joslyn

The likelihood of floods and other potentially destructive natural phenomena is often expressed as a return period or recurrence interval, such as a 100-yr flood. However, the expression might give users the impression that the event will occur exactly once within the described period, obscuring the intended probabilistic meaning. If so, users may think a flood is less likely when one has just occurred or more likely when it has not, leading to a “flood is due” effect. This hypothesis was tested experimentally in two studies reported here

Long a bugaboo of the risk communication and the weather, water, and climate communities. Some quantitative data behind the concern….

The Opportunities and Needs of Water Utility Professionals as Community Climate–Water Leaders

Karen Raucher, Robert Raucher, Kenan Ozekin, and Kristin Wegner

Community water is a key place Americans will personally experience climate change. A 2013 nationally representative survey found that 92% of Americans want their community water provider to be a leader in preparing their community for climate change, and that community water providers are highly trusted sources for climate information. These findings place water utility professionals on the front line of climate response…

The paper presents updates from a 2016 survey….

Thirty Years of Multilevel Processes for Adaptation of Livestock Production to Droughts in Uruguay

I. Cruz, W. Baethgen, D. Bartaburu, M. Bidegain, A. Giménez, M. Methol, H. Morales, V. Picasso, G. Podestá, R. Taddei, R. Terra, G. Tiscornia, and M. Vinocur

Most countries lack effective policies to manage climate risks, despite growing concerns with climate change. The authors analyzed the policy evolution from a disaster management to a risk management approach, using as a case study four agricultural droughts that impacted Uruguay’s livestock sector in the last three decades. A transdisciplinary team of researchers, extension workers, and policy makers agreed on a common conceptual framework for the interpretation of past droughts and policies. The evidence presented shows that the set of actions implemented at different levels when facing droughts were mainly reactive in the past but later evolved to a more integral risk management approach…

Growing at the Margins: Adaptation to Severe Weather in the Marginal Lands of the British Isles

Dorian Speakman

With the problem of severe weather events having significant impacts on harvests in Britain, this study has looked at how small-scale food producers use agroecology to adapt to adverse weather conditions; 23 sites growing food using agroecology across the British Isles in areas severely disadvantaged to agriculture were investigated. Because the climate in these areas is generally hostile to horticulture (often in combination with other factors such as land quality), all the participants have to adapt to the prevailing weather conditions and frequent severe weather events…

The Relationships among Actual Weather Events, Perceived Unusual Weather, Media Use, and Global Warming Belief Certainty in China

Xiao Wang and Lin Lin

Previous research revealed that if individuals personally experience an unusual weather event as a result of global warming (vs no personal experience), they may hold higher belief certainty that global warming is happening and hence develop more favorable attitudes toward mitigation actions. However, much of the previous research focused on self-reported personal experience and global warming beliefs using cross-sectional surveys; reverse causality is thus possible

Social Resilience to Climate-Related Disasters in Ancient Societies: A Test of Two Hypotheses

Peter N. Peregrine

Current literature on disaster response argues that societies providing greater local participation in decision-making and that have more community coordination and governance organizations are more resilient to climate-related disasters. In contrast, recent research in psychology has argued that societies with tighter social norms and greater enforcement of those norms are more resilient. This paper tests whether one or both of these seemingly competing perspectives can be empirically supported through an examination of the diachronic impact of climate-related disasters on ancient societies. A cross-cultural research design and a sample of 33 archaeologically known societies bracketing 22 catastrophic climate-related disasters are used to test two hypotheses about resilience to climate-related disasters. The paper finds that societies allowing greater political participation appear to provide greater resilience to catastrophic climate-related disasters, generally supporting the predominant perspective in contemporary disaster response. Printed the entire abstract here. Who knew such a study was even possible? Stunning.

The Value of Remotely Sensed Information: The Case of a GRACE-Enhanced Drought Severity Index

Richard Bernknopf, David Brookshire, Yusuke Kuwayama, Molly Macauley, Matthew Rodell, Alexandra Thompson, Peter Vail, and Benjamin Zaitchik

A decision framework is developed for quantifying the economic value of information (VOI) from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission for drought monitoring, with a focus on the potential contributions of groundwater storage and soil moisture measurements from the GRACE data assimilation (GRACE-DA) system. The study consists of (i) the development of a conceptual framework to evaluate the socioeconomic value of GRACE-DA as a contributing source of information to drought monitoring; (ii) structured listening sessions to understand the needs of stakeholders who are affected by drought monitoring; (iii) econometric analysis based on the conceptual framework that characterizes the contribution of GRACE-DA to the U.S. Drought Monitor (USDM) in capturing the effects of drought on the agricultural sector; and (iv) a demonstration of how the improved characterization of drought conditions may influence decisions made in a real-world drought disaster assistance program. Results show that GRACE-DA has the potential to lower the uncertainty associated with the understanding of drought and that this improved understanding has the potential to change policy decisions that lead to tangible societal benefits. Reprinted the entire abstract here as well. Reminder that economics is a social science, and an encouraging sign that science and technology can positively influence policymaking, despite the current media headlines to the contrary.

____________________________________

To repeat: the full texts of these papers are available at the link. What’s more, the papers omitted in this sample are every bit the equal in interest, importance and diversity of those highlighted here.

Breathtaking stuff.

Breathtaking – not just because there’s multi-disciplinary research virtuosity on display, though there’s plenty of that.

Breathtaking – because each of the bits of work being reported is adding more to our understanding, and construction of, the integrated framework connecting weather and climate to seven billion people – our hopes, aspirations, and realistic prospects. Our connections to weather and climate are intricately interwoven, strong in some ways and fragile in others, and constantly evolving in response to changes in society, technology, and the surface of our planet itself. It’s our greatest 21st-century adventure, and it’s being documented on these WCAS pages.

________________________

[1] Have a sneaking suspicion my laptop has been trying to tell me this link is available only if you have a subscription. If that’s the case, my apologies, but perhaps this’ll motivate you to take the plunge.

Also, an apology; in my enthusiasm I jumped the gun a bit. WCAS is at volume 10… but not quite ten. Yet. My bad.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Weather, Climate and Society reaches ten years.

October 2009 and January 2018 issues of WCAS

This morning I came to work ready to tackle a workshop report and a research proposal that urgently need attention, but the mail in my chair decided me on a brief delay.

That’s because the stack included the latest print copy of the AMS journal, Weather, Climate, and Society, for January 2018.

Volume 10, Number 1. What a milestone!

For the AMS. Ten years ago the American Meteorological Society was approaching 90. For all of those years its purposes included (1) the advancement of science and technology, and (2) the application of those advances for societal benefit. The strategy for the former was clear and longstanding, revolving around technical conferences and comprising a range of journals. The approach to the latter included conferences for and certification of the broadcasters and those in government and the private sector producing operational forecast products. The consensus was that societal benefit from weather forecasts was limited primarily by the quality of those physical forecasts. Attention focused on their improvement. And improvement there was, thanks to new physical understanding, new observing platforms and instruments, and computing power.

Over the more recent past, however, societal benefit had failed to keep pace with improvements in forecasts of atmospheric conditions. The reasons? These were numerous but included limitations in communication of forecasts; insufficient attention to the links connecting weather conditions to economic and social impacts; little information for users about their options for action; inadequate characterization of uncertainty; and much more. It was time to be disciplined and structured not just in the development of meteorological information (broadly construed, to include not just weather but hydrology, climate, space weather, etc.) but also in the application of that information..

These realities posed a challenge for AMS staff, AMS volunteer leadership, and ultimately, every AMS member. Science – and the integrity of that science – would of course remain paramount. But should AMS sharpen its focus to study of the physical atmospheric and oceanic sciences per se, or should it expand and step up its activities to support the application of that science for societal benefit? To focus on the former would allow AMS to rely on existing resources and stay in its comfort zone. To do justice to the latter – an ambitious job – would carry both financial implications and risk.

After considerable discussion and debate, the AMS opted for the latter course. The implications have shaped every AMS action and decision since, but two of the more consequential decisions were (1) the establishment of an annual Symposium on Societal Applications, Policy Research, and Practice, and (2), standing up a new scientific journal, Weather Climate, and Society (WCAS), to be published quarterly.

The initial issue of WCAS was published in October of 2009. The first slim number contained only 90 pages; in the ten years since the issues have doubled or tripled in size, as the journal’s reputation has grown, the numbers of social scientists entering the research space have multiplied, and as AMS has adapted its business model for the journal, making it more congruent with practices elsewhere in the social sciences.

First and most recent issues of WCAS showing growth in submissions; starbucks coffee, business cards (and other desk clutter) provide scale. 🙂

None of this has been easy! To achieve this growth in submissions, breadth, and quality has required vision and sustained hard work from Keith Seitter, the AMS Executive Director, Ken Heideman, the AMS director of publications, and AMS editorial staff; from AMS volunteer leadership, including two Publications Commissioners, Dave Jorgensen and Bob Rauber; three chief editors, Roberta Balstad Miller, Amanda Lynch, and most recently Henry Huntington; and from their WCAS Editorial Board and the hundreds of authors who’ve been doing the research and writing the journal articles themselves.

For meteorology and social science, and for the larger world. But the accomplishment isn’t limited to the AMS per se; it’s changing our field – how we view ourselves and how others view us. WCAS and the related technical meetings at the intersection of meteorology, social science, and policy have shaped AMS priorities and impacts in subtle but important ways. Earth scientists or geoscientists or meteorologists and social scientists can today see career paths and opportunities without limit, spanning the physical and social sciences, public-, private, and academic sectors, and basic research and applications, with few constraining boundaries or barriers to impede progress. They can bring their attention and energies to bear on solving big challenges – capturing Earth’s energy-, water-, and agricultural bounty; building community-level resilience to hazards globally; protecting the environment, habitat, and ecosystems.

Increasingly, the larger society sees the Earth scientists and social scientists working in this space as pivotally important to national and global aspirations to live a little better, a little more safely, and a little longer on this generous but dangerous and fragile planet. They see community values of innovation, inclusion, and international reach as invitations to partner and collaborate to make a better world. And increasingly, political leaders, business leaders, and publics domestically and internationally are accepting that invitation.

And all this stemming from a single – and singular – technical journal.

_______________________________________________________

Want to get a feel for how important WCAS will be at the end of AMS’ second century? Go back into the AMS archives and look at some of the 1870’s vintage Monthly Weather Reviews. Compare them with a current issue. The best is yet to come.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment