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.
