That Warning Was Stupid

For as long as I've been forecasting, I will often check my work after the fact. Not a daily ritual of checking highs and lows, but more of a QC of the general idea of my forecast. If I forecast widespread severe weather and it didn't even rain, then I probably missed the general idea. On the flip side, if I forecast a widespread 1" of snow and every county in my CWA, except one, sees around 1", then I would say I got the general idea right (even if that one county got 3-6"). The job isn't a perfect one and neither are any of my forecasts. But, I'd like to get the general idea down as much as possible.

I know missing a forecast isn't the end of the world, but when you blow a forecast to the point that most of the general public realizes it, that can be a tough pill to swallow. Perhaps I worry about this too much, but part of me feels like I let down the people I serve. People count on us as Meteorologists to help them understand, plan on, and predict the weather. I think most have a good understanding that we aren't perfect, but still...

Recently I had what appears to be one of my bigger misses of late. An impactful snow that I had been forecasting for days basically fell apart before my eyes. Some areas still had impacts, but it wasn't nearly to the scale I expected. And, one of the areas that was supposed to get hit and didn't was our biggest population center. No forecast of mine has ever been perfect, but this one definitely missed the cut. One caller to our office referenced my Winter Storm Warning as being stupid. I don't take those comments to heart, but again, people notice missed forecasts. So, what do you do with those blown forecasts?

Well, there are a lot of ways to handle such a forecast and my mind was all over the place. Am I a good forecaster? Have I forgotten the science? Was I wish-casting? Will my neighbors drag me out onto the NOT-snow-covered street? Ok, so maybe I wasn't worried about that last one there. The point is, I wrestled through many things about myself as a Meteorologist.

But, at the end of the day, I was reminded of several things that I think could apply to others who may find themselves in a similar busted forecast boat. First off, I'm not the first forecaster to blow a forecast, even though it felt that way, and neither are you! Although, I suppose somewhere back in the beginning of forecasting weather, someone actually did make the first missed forecast. I'm sure that was good times...

I can't help but wondering if a blown forecast here or there is actually a good thing. Some people just seem to exude humility, but for the rest of us, it seems that it has to be learned...and learned through experience. Missed forecasts are humbling. I once heard a guy give a speech on humility. He mentioned 4 marks of a humble person:

1. Being Self Aware
2. Being Teachable
3. Concern for Others
4. Gratitude

Putting these into practice for a missed forecast might look something like this:

1. Be aware of and honest about your weaknesses as a forecaster and work on improving in those areas. Or, if the blown forecast was made in an area you are strong in, be honest about what was missed. The key is to not dwell on these weaknesses or misses to the point of putting yourself down. Me wallowing around in thoughts of whether I am a good forecaster or not doesn't do anyone any good. It's good to know my weaknesses, weaknesses of models, and simply the parts of weather that are very difficult to forecast at times. Know them, be aware of them, but don't wallow in them...

2. Pretty much self-explanatory. Missed forecasts can serve as a teaching opportunity...and not just for yourself. I've looked back and can see at least part of where I missed the boat on this recent flop. Instead of swimming in self-doubt, though, I can use this as an opportunity to improve as a forecaster, and perhaps it can even be used to teach another down the road ('oh man, when the models show that, be wary of this...').

3. For Meteorologists, I think this could be seen as caring enough about the people we serve to take our mistakes and learn from them. The speaker stressed that it is important to think about how things impact others...and not just ourselves. It's easy to think about how bad a missed forecast makes me look or feel, but at the end of the day, how did it impact those I serve? I can never serve them perfectly, but I can sure do what I can to best serve them going forward!

4. This one is tougher to nail down, but I am grateful that I'm not alone in missing forecasts. I'm grateful for technology/research that, I imagine, helps us to miss less forecasts than in generations past. Dare I say, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be humbled...in that it will hopefully make me a better forecaster at the end of the day.

We will never be perfect and striving for perfection will leave you frustrated time and time again. But, we can always strive to do/be our best. In the process of shooting for our best, we will make mistakes. But, perhaps those mistakes are really just a part of the process of becoming a better Meteorologist.

Hazards...Is Simpler Better?

The office I work for as of this writing (NWS Great Falls) has, in recent years, taken steps to get feedback from partners and the public about how they feel we did with various winter weather events and what steps, if any, they took after various products were issued. A lot of responses were expected, but something that caught my attention was how some viewed Winter Weather Advisories compared to Winter Storm Warnings. Surprisingly, some thought an advisory was worse than a warning. Speaking as someone who knows the difference, I did not expect that confusion. But, at the same time, I still have a hard time with people getting Tornado Watches and warnings confused. I know our products (as I should), but maybe the confusion is a sign of a bigger problem.

I love the idea of simplifying our hazards. When I look at the difference between Canada’s “WWA” map and the US’ (see maps below), I feel like simpler is probably better. The legends, alone, speak to the different approach.

But then again, part of me likes the array of colors. Maybe I’m just used to it, but I do like how I can quickly look at the map and know roughly what each hazard is without even having to click on it. That takes us back to my perception, not only as a Meteorologist, but as a NWS employee who has been used to this map and colors for years. The real question is, what does my wife think of the colorful array of filled in counties? I guarantee she can’t look at the map and say (without reading the legend), ‘Oohh…look at the expansive fog advisory in Arkansas!’. I can, but I bet most of the public can’t. The WWA map isn’t for me, it’s for the people I serve. Granted, the legend clears things up some, but maybe multiple colors isn’t the best.

Then I go back to the products, themselves. Recently, while contemplating with some colleagues on the best way to handle an incoming winter system, I came to the realization that for me, personally, I couldn’t say with complete confidence that one way to message the event was better than another. Various products had their pros and cons, but initially it was hard to say one product was the overwhelming favorite.

In this case, 1-3” of snow was expected for the southern third of our CWA, but on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. 1-3” of snow in this part of Montana is not earth-shattering, but not only did it fall after a relatively mild and snow-free period, it also came during the middle of a very busy holiday travel day and this presented an interesting messaging dilemma. It was discussed whether an SPS or advisory was warranted (a warning seemed too much given widespread, significant impacts were not expected). As mentioned earlier, though, some consider an advisory worse than a warning, but maybe this and the watch vs warning dilemma is an education/outreach issue??

While this wasn’t expected to be a significant event, it seemed worth it to get people’s attention, especially given the usually higher volume of traffic through the area. In the past, I would have leaned towards an SPS, but then I got to thinking about reach. Which product is the most visible (which seemed to be a motivating factor in this decision)? As far as I know, TWC still crawls SPS’ in addition to advisories and watches/warnings (I haven’t had cable in several years, though, so please correct me on this if I’m wrong). On social media, we could post either (or just make a general post that doesn’t reference any specific product), so that didn't seem to change the decision. But, what about the local TV media? Here, at least, I have never seen a station show SPS’ on any of their watch/warning maps, but they will show advisories. At the end of the day, I felt like an advisory had the best chance of being the most visible between the two options. That is what our office ended up doing. But, I’m not saying this is a right/wrong issue, it just re-invigorated the messaging discussion in my mind.

But, what about a case where the decision is advisory vs warning? Using the above arguments, both may get the same amount of visibility and, frankly, it appears not everyone even understands the difference. So, we might say warning over advisory in a more widespread, higher-impact event, but would the correct message even be conveyed? In the wording, sure, but just getting the alert on a phone without seeing text...would people know the significance of a warning vs. advisory? I'm sure some would, but based on feedback here, not all would. Some have proposed we get rid of one, namely the advisory. Honestly, I can’t argue against that. But, do we keep the SPS? I know that this product will still go to many phones via apps, even if it never shows up on TV stations. Plus, as it stands now, it covers quite the array of hazards that fall in the potentially-less-impactful-than-a-warning category.

And, of course, what would a good discussion be without a little outside of the box thinking?! As much as I believe a simpler hazards approach is best, is the risk of confusion worth it? We’ve had certain products for so long and people, whether they understand them or not, have heard of these products for many years. Is wiping out products and going with simply Statement, Watch, Warning (ie. like Canada) the right approach? I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m just asking the question. Do we keep the current system and work harder at outreach/education or is the risk of further confusion worth what is probably the best long-term solution? My gut says simplification is worth the risk.

I feel like there isn’t a perfect solution that adequately meets the needs of every single user, but I believe there is a solution that is the most ideal. Personally, I’m still not sure what that is, but it seems some form of simpler is probably better. I’m hoping through user feedback, we can come up with a best solution. I do believe that the best solution cannot be figured out without user feedback. To this point, it’s great to see the effort to get that feedback! I hope we get some beneficial feedback along the way.

As I said before, I believe simplifying is the best option, but I also believe there will be some growing pains along the way. I think if we work together along with feedback from those we serve, we can come up with a more ideal solution. It’s going to take patience and a concerted effort, two tasks that aren’t always easy, but perhaps it will lead to a more user-friendly product suite and maybe even an improved response to hazardous weather.

AFDology

Over the last few years, I have talked quite a bit with a good friend of mine, a fellow NWS Meteorologist, about the ideology behind AFD (or equivalent) writing (or in his words, AFDology). Until I got into the NWS, I didn’t realize just how many opinions there were on the subject. In light of the various ideas, I thought I would take a stab at some thoughts of my own on the subject. Of note, if you’d rather not read through my thoughts at length, skip on down to the bottom where I do a quick summary of the points discussed below.

I suppose with any product, it’s good to start at the source. For NWSers, that would be the directives. Now, for those in the private sector, the start would, of course, be your company’s guidelines. But, given I can’t cover every rule of every private company, I’ll use the NWS directives as a start. Directive 10-5 (sec. 2.1) states, “The AFD is a semi-technical product primarily used as a means to explain the scientific rationale behind a forecast”. And I would imagine many private companies have some similar wording.

Overall, there is not a lot of ambiguity in that statement. However, the use of the term, ‘semi-technical’ brings up an interesting point. So, strictly-speaking, the AFD is used to express the scientific rationale behind a forecast, but in a semi- (or half) technical way. Ok, well what constitutes half? Maybe one technical sentence followed by a non-technical one? Boy, I don’t think so, Bob. Or how about this? If one is planning to use 30 technical words, maybe they should just get rid of 15 of those. Ok, now we are just losing people.

To me, semi-technical falls somewhere between a thesis or scientific write-up and a brief summary you give your sister before her wedding day. But, there’s a lot of room in between those two extremes and it seems this is where the varied opinions generally live. My personal caveat here is that I don’t know the right answer and I’m not entirely sure that a perfect answer/solution even exists.

For folks in the NWS, and possibly some private companies as well, our products are unique. And by unique, I don’t mean they have some special flare to them that no one else has. What makes them unique are the customers they serve. Some private companies have the advantage of writing to a specific audience while the NWS does not enjoy this luxury with every product. The AFD is one of these products. You have everyone from average Sally to emergency managers reading these things and there is a wide variety of backgrounds in weather knowledge. And, frankly, within those varied backgrounds are varied motivations for reading AFDs.

Perhaps this is what the semi-technical wording stems from…because of the varied readership. So, where does this leave us as writers of these products? Outside of partner/customer-specific products, I feel like the AFD falls into the category that many of our other products fall into…you just can’t meet every need of every person who reads/uses them. The directive states that the AFD is primarily intended for “federal agencies, weather sensitive officials, and the media”. Even in that group, though, the weather knowledge varies. However, I still think we can try to come up with something that meets as many needs as possible. For some of us, that might mean throwing in a bit more science, while for others it could mean just the opposite.

And on that note, I wonder if AFD writing should vary by region/office based on locally known knowledge/use? When I first entered into the NWS, hands down I would have said no. But, I can understand those who argue that point. Readers in Alaska probably don’t have the same grasp of convection as those in Alabama. Terms like convection, CAPE, shear, etc are frequently used in Alabama, and not just by the NWS, but by the media as well. Now, maybe people watching TV in Alabama don’t understand everything the local Met is saying, but they probably hear it enough to know that high CAPE/shear isn’t usually a good thing. People in Alaska probably do not hear these terms as often. So, while Mets in Alaska and Alabama may have the same understanding of convection, their readers probably don’t. So, perhaps throwing out a bunch of convective parameters in Alaska isn’t as helpful.

But, then again, we often talk about the importance of education. This probably more specifically applies to education regarding weather safety, but I think there is a place for Meteorological education within the NWS and/or private companies and I believe that the AFD can be one of the means to educate. In fact, the directive goes on to say, “The forecast insight provided in the AFD is beyond that which can be found in other NWS products”. I “grew up” on AFDs from many different offices, including Upton (NY), Boston, and Huntsville (AL). Prior to entering college, I read countless AFDs from these offices (all of which did not shy away from the science aspect) and I truly believe I am better off for it.

Granted, I was a motivated learner and not everyone reading our AFDs will fall into that category. In fact, outside of those aspiring to become a Meteorologist, I wonder how many people actually read AFDs with some educational motivation. That said, I have met non-Meteorologists who have expressed a genuine interest in learning more about weather than just what a cold front is, and who like the science part. One forecaster I asked about this said he likes to put in some additional info sometimes as a way to teach, or at least as a way to clarify what a certain term is. Of course, if someone reads an AFD on an NWS site, they will likely get some pop-ups to describe often-used terms. But, not everyone reads AFDs on an NWS site, so I can see the benefit of this as well. Whether a person puts a lot or only a little science in, it would make sense that the original intent of the AFD, at least from a NWS standpoint, was to provide insight not provided anywhere else.

All the talk so far has been about serving the customer, which is very important in my opinion. But, there is another aspect of AFDology that I’ve wrestled with lately, namely the advantages it offers to each AFD writer. This is something that is not expressly covered in the directive, but one that I personally find important. As Meteorologists, we all think/process things differently. How I compose a forecast may differ from that of another forecaster. For me, the AFD serves as a way to think through my forecast reasoning. Some people can just do all that in their heads, but for me writing it out helps. Heck, that’s one of the reasons I started this blog in the first place…to help myself (and maybe others) think through the challenges faced in this field.

The AFD is almost like a means of accountability for me. It keeps me sharp on the science and can even help point out issues in my forecast. There have been times where, as I wrote out my reasoning for something, I realized my reasoning was flawed or that I had missed something that actually required me to go back and change a part of the forecast itself (and hopefully make it better). Also, it continually forces me to know what I know (if you know what I mean). In other words, if I’m going to make some claim that supercells with violent tornadoes are likely, and I plan to back that claim up in the AFD, I had better know what I am talking about, otherwise I risk sending out a widely read product with the wrong scientific reasoning. It forces me to only say what I know, which in turn can be motivation for finding out what I don’t know. Granted, I know this won’t be the case for everyone, but just throwing out one idea not specifically covered in the directive.

Some might say that AFDs are not meant to be science checks and I get that. However, if it helps the forecaster put out a better forecast and/or keeps them sharp for continued good forecasts down the road, then it’s hard to ignore that it’s at least something worth considering.

On the other hand, some have expressed concern that AFDs have trended away from the science and are becoming less and less technical. Some of this may stem from an individual’s AFDology. At this point, though, I feel like we have so many non-technical public products (ie. weather stories, regional weather synopses, etc), that it is a good idea to keep the AFD more technical. I have no problem with the wide array of non-technical products, but I just think that it is good to keep at least one technical product going.

Summary Points

1.      I don’t believe there is one right answer and, in fact, the AFD that best serves our customers may vary by office/location.

2.      For NWSers, the “semi-technical” wording in the directive is a bit vague and is likely interpreted differently by person/office.

3.      AFDs have the potential to educate our readers, especially aspiring Meteorologists or those really into learning more about weather. But, it can also provide some background on terms that our partners might hear us mention from time to time in briefings, etc.

4.      Even with the DSS push, we already have several non-technical products and I believe there are advantages to still keeping technical products (like the AFD) around. Plus, as stated by the directive, “The forecast insight provided in the AFD is beyond that which can be found in other NWS products”.

5.      AFDs have the potential to keep us accountable to what we put into our discussions and may provide motivation to learn what we don’t know.

So, for me, I feel more comfortable than I originally did as far as the AFD varying some by office / location if the motivation is to do what is best for the respective readers. But, I don’t think it is necessarily beneficial to turn the AFD into a public summary with little to no science, especially considering the other non-technical products, summaries, and discussions that many offices already use. At a private weather company I used to work for, we had a public discussion and a more technical discussion. If people wanted to read the more technical one, they could. Otherwise, they could just read the non-technical one and get the basic gist of the upcoming with only a hint of science thrown in. To me, it seems the AFD should be treated a similar way. Who knows, maybe one day we will have a shorter, non-technical discussion that goes out, with a more technical discussion available for those who want to find out more.

Meteorology is a science, but there also seems to be a science to serving our customers. I think the best AFD writers find a way to balance science with effective communication, all with the motivation of best serving the end-user.

That Storm Did What?

One of the most rewarding, fun, and challenging parts of my job is issuing convective warnings. Now, I am no seasoned warning operator yet, but recent events have taught me a lot about convection. Knowing about convective environments, storm structure, etc is great, but interrogating storms for hours on end offers a unique learning opportunity that only adds to any working knowledge of thunderstorms. Storm behavior is a great teacher! I have also learned something else…the warning environment is full of surprises. Some of these surprises can be frustrating in the moment, but it’s hard not to look back later and just laugh. Laughter is so important in life, so I thought I would share a few of my surprises and I’m sure others can add to this list!

So there you are, keeping a close eye on a strengthening storm approaching Hail Town. You put out a SPS knowing it will likely continue to strengthen. And, sure enough, it does and you put out a SVR. Soon, you’ve got 50 dBZ up to the -50C level, 250 kt storm-top divergence, and a beautiful hail spike…and the storm is headed right for Hail Town. All of a sudden, it makes a right turn and misses the town to the east, but alas, there are a couple of random local spotters clustered right next to each other east of town (they appear to be close enough to be neighbors). As soon as the core passes, you call them up. “I’m sorry Ma’am, you said you only had peas? Is it possible there were a few baseballs mixed in with those peas?” I mean, the core had such a large area of 70+ dBZ, you are sure she is probably seeing 70 dBZ pixels in her backyard…and in high res mind you! You call up spotter two. “Sir, you say you had 30 minutes of baseball size hail and it looks like things have been tore up for miles? You know, your neighbor across the street only had peas…perhaps you should consider relocating.”

Then there is the, ‘that-storm-did-what?’. Storm Z0 approaches your largest city with 50 dBZ up to 500 feet and storm top divergence of 5 kt in an environment characterized by MUCAPE of 50 j/kg. Not even SPS worthy. Suddenly, 200 people call in reporting baseballs raining down on town tearing things up. Not to mention, since the storms had all dissipated, you let extra forecaster #3 go home an hour earlier...and now you are radar / switchboard operator. At the same time, a second storm pops up looking MUCH stronger than the storm that produced baseballs, so of course you put out a SVR on it. Spotter under the core then calls to report light rain and a few lightning strikes.

And then you have the storms that you are certain are terrified of spotters. “Hey Bob, it looks like this storm will go right over this clustering of 30 spotters in Quietsville. We should definitely get some reports out of this one. Wait, is that storm splitting?” Of course, the left-mover, which now certainly has hail, is going over a privately-owned 500 acre lake which means there will be no driving in behind the storm to see what fell. Here in the Great Falls CWA, spotters are mostly clustered in small towns with very few outside of town. In fact, if you scroll too far in, you might think that your spotter overlay hasn’t even been loaded. Storms love the open country apparently…that or they don’t want people to know what they are up to. Of course, when they do find spotters, it is the ones that have changed phone numbers or are on vacation for the next 3 weeks.

Of course, you cannot leave out the technology mishaps. Perhaps you’ve experienced some of these? “GR2 has encountered an error and must close”. Oh, yeah, must it? “DirectX not found…program will not open”. Hmmm…the program had no problem finding that yesterday. “Spotter readout unavailable”. E-gads, if the storms think there are no spotters, then they are sure to hit population centers. Someone needs to get the spotter readout turned on stat! “Windows just installed new updates, your computer will now run in sloth mode until you restart”. So, that’s what 14.4 modems were like. “This webcam is temporarily unavailable”. I swear, in the 12 years I’ve been here, that camera has never gone down!

Now admittedly, some of the issues above are exaggerated JUST a bit. Regardless, whether you issue warnings for the NWS, alerts for a private company, or simply call your parents when a storm is headed for their house, I’m sure many of you have run into a various assortment of challenges (some of which seem like they have been exaggerated, when in fact they haven’t). Warning people about severe storms is not always a clear-cut, easy task. There are events where for whatever reason, you issue warnings/alert others for hours on storms that have classic hail, damaging wind, and/or tornado signatures and no reports are received. Or maybe you are in the middle of an event when your office’s radar (or another radar you use) goes down. But, you go off what you know and your previous experiences and carry on offering the best service you can. I joke a bit about some of the challenges above because I think it is important to laugh at life sometimes, but in the moment, they usually aren’t funny and can even be frustrating at times. Did I mention it is important to laugh?

Meteorologists…we have a unique job and one in which I don’t think many people quite understand all that we do. But, it’s ok, because we know...or at least I hope we know. If you feel like you don’t, I hope this will be a reminder of the great opportunity we have to provide a valuable service in smooth and not-so-smooth times! I realize not everyone will issue warnings, alerts, etc. But, that isn’t the only challenge. This profession is full of applying scientific principles with a mix of gut feeling/experience thrown in during less than ideal situations. We often have to make decisions in real-time, and the flow of information isn’t always smooth. It’s those times that really try us as professionals…a little refinement by fire if you will. But, then, there are the times when everything just seems to work perfectly. Reliable spotters are calling in reports on every storm, you are fully-staffed, storms are behaving like you expect, and so on. I believe it is in those smooth events that we do even better because we’ve faced the not-so-smooth events/challenges. So, don’t let those frustrating and, in hindsight, humorous, issues during active weather get you down or discouraged. As I said in the beginning, storm behavior is an amazing teacher!

Meteorology...Things Are a Changin'

“Congratulations on your new job! It won’t be here in five years, but congratulations!” This is NOT the introduction you want when you start a new job. In the year and a half since I started working for the National Weather Service (NWS), no one has ever said these exact words to me and yet at times I’ve felt like this is what they meant. The recent ars technica article was just another grim look into the future for many Meteorologists (or so it appeared).

I am not a doomsday person, but I’d be lying if I said this article and words from others hasn’t been at least somewhat discouraging. I haven’t wanted to hear it nor believe it! But, stubbornness is not next to Godliness, so I figured I should at least have an open mind. The people in the field whom I have talked to about this have meant well and their opinions have been shared in a non-threatening way. The nice thing is that this fosters conversation/dialogue. Maybe I am being stubborn, but maybe others are being pessimistic. Either way, dialogue is good, but it won’t work well if one or both sides are closed off to new or different ideas. So, I started there. By the way, if you want some great advice on keeping peaceful and open-minded dialogue going during conversations that involve strong opinions, a great book to read is “Crucial Conversations” by Patterson et al.

Sometimes we let ourselves believe certain things that aren’t true, if for no other reason than that we don’t want them to be. I am guilty of this. I didn’t want to believe that computers could be, or already are in some cases, better at forecasting than humans. Not so much because I have a problem with the success of computer models, but because it has implications on my career (the one I only started a year ago). I uprooted my family and we drove for four straight days from Alabama to Montana to take this job and the last thing I want to hear is that it might have been a bad decision. I love technology, but darn it, it’s taking our jobs! Ok, whoa there Nellie, let’s slow that roll a bit. In “Crucial Conversations”, the authors encourage people to master their stories (Patterson, et al 103). In other words, examine your emotions and whatever story you’ve come up with to see what parts, if any, are valid, and then objectively re-tell the story.

So, back to having an open mind. I came into the NWS with no preconceived notions about the future of the agency or the Meteorological community as a whole. Shortly after, I heard some opinions, read some articles, and boom, I start wondering if I chose the right path. As the emotions built, I began to shut down my mind to what appeared to be outlandish, grim ideas. And you know what? I started getting frustrated and mad at the very people throwing these ideas around. They didn’t mean any harm, they were just trying to help me plan for the future. One of my co-workers encouraged me to keep my head out of the sand and not ignore what is going on. So with a little help from the Big Man upstairs, I decided to keep my head up and truly listen to what others were saying instead of burying my head in the sand. Below are my thoughts on the matter thus far…

1.      This goes without saying, but a lot of ideas from myself and others are just speculation. There appears to be a lot of writing on the wall regarding the future of certain aspects of Meteorology, but like the models seven days out, there is a lot of uncertainty still. Hey, uncertainty is woven into our field every day, I think we can handle it!

2.      I don’t believe we will wake up tomorrow and find that the GFS and ECMWF have taken over our jobs and locked us out of our buildings. There is no doubt in my mind that the models continue to get better and better. I’ve been a Meteorologist for seven years and even in that short time, I’ve seen some pretty amazing changes. But, I’ve also seen plenty of errors, biases, and horribly wrong solutions. They continue to improve, but personally I don’t yet believe we are completely to the point of giving over the forecasting keys to the entire “building”. I do, however, think we can give the keys over to parts of the “building”, but just not all yet. And I don’t think the keys will be turned over next week. Could this happen within the next five years? Maybe, but only time will tell and I don’t know if anyone can say for certain yet when that time will come or how much of the "building" will be given over (maybe some will never be given over completely).

3.      I love forecasting and the thought of handing the “keys” over is admittedly a sad realization to some degree. At the same time, if the point comes where I am not adding any value (and possibly even reducing value), then why fight that part of the discussion? If my goal truly is what is best for our customers, then wouldn’t I want them to have the best forecast even if it doesn’t come from my hands? As much as I hate to admit it or let it go, I realize that one day it just might come to that for many of us.

4.      Even if much of the forecasting responsibility gets turned over to the models, I don't think this means we are all out of a job. I believe there will always be a need for interpretation and decision support. When I’m driving, my car is doing most of the work to get me from Point A to Point B. But, I can’t necessarily tell you what all it is doing or how it is doing what it is doing. My mechanic can, though. He can interpret the weird noises and give me guidance on how to respond to those noises. He is a knowledge expert and I think we will always be that as Meteorologists. In the future, we may not make the forecasts any more than mechanics make cars. But, we can explain what is going on. We can communicate threats, provide guidance…tell people about the “noise” they are seeing in the forecast. Maybe it is a long ways before we completely get to this point, I don’t know. But, it potentially offers a glass-half-full view of doing less forecasting. Personally, I love decision support and forecasting. Maybe the future will hold more decision support / threat assessment and guidance and less forecasting. Disappointing to some degree for sure, but not the end of the world. The world still needs mechanics…

5.      Whatever changes occur in the field of Meteorology, it does seem likely that the field as we know it today will look different 5-10+ years down the road (probably even sooner in some ways). I don’t say this in a negative way, but just thinking realistically (something my wife will tell you I am not that good at). I’d rather dream of everything staying the way it is forever…aahhh. Change isn’t always easy. I’m all about change when it benefits me, but when it has negative implications, I’m less gung-ho. But, I know this isn’t a good place to be. Change always has and always will occur. I think what is important is how we respond to it.

6.      One way to respond to change is look for the good in it. Our four-year old daughter is NOT a fan of change. Lately my wife and I have really had to work hard to teach her to find the positives. ‘Well, Rog, what good could possibly come of the changes people keep talking about?’. One thing I think we will still be able to specialize in for some time, and possibly forever, is high-impact weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fire weather, etc). With the models potentially doing more of the forecasting, this could free up more energy and effort on short-term warnings, communication, threat assessment, decision-support, etc. I’ve heard a couple people argue that even this may go away down the road. Even with an open mind, I’m not convinced of this just yet. I would want to see a marked increase in short-term model performance, among other things. Maybe it will come to this, but that’s still on the table as far as I’m concerned.

Regardless of where you may fall on this topic, I totally understand some of the fear, concern, or just plain not wanting it to be true. I have, and continue to, struggle with this myself. I love weather. I love forecasting. I love doing my best to provide the best information to people in an effort to protect lives and property (or that wedding in the heart of the rainy season). The thought that down the road some parts of the job I love may go away is something I really don’t want to think about much. But, I also believe part of it is just the nature of life. I am a firm believer in finding the good in people, things, life, change, whatever. This is no easy task and is one that I have failed at many a time, but it is doable.

I think as a community, we have to look at each potential change and evaluate it honestly. Some changes may legitimately be a bad idea and if so we should look for an alternative. Others will be good and we may just have to admit that whether we want to or not. I think some changes will look grim at first, but after the fact will be seen as a great idea. Lastly I would say to be careful of believing everything you read. Many people or articles may paint a very grim picture (whether intentional or not). With an open mind and an honest assessment, I think each outlook into the future can be separated between pessimistic and objective.

I’ll end with a quote from “Crucial Conversations”. It refers to dialogue, but I think it relates. “The best at dialogue…aren’t held hostage by their emotions, nor do they try to hide or suppress them. Instead, they act on their emotions. That is, when they have strong feelings, they influence (and often change) their emotions by thinking them out" (Patterson, et al 106-107). Our feelings about the future of the field we love are real. Just don’t forget to QC those emotions.

A little works cited for ya:

 

Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. Crucial Conversations. Tools

            For talking when Stakes are High. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. Print