What Small Town USA Can Teach Us

Last week I did a spotter talk up in the far NE corner of our CWA...a rural town of just over 1200 people and located just south of the US/Canadian border (Chinook, MT). 1% of the population showed up. I would say most of our CWA is rural, with a handful of urban areas mixed in. Leaving that meeting, I started thinking about the needs of small town USA and, of all the things we do in the NWS, what is the most helpful for them.

A couple months ago, I wrote a post about picking your battles. Talking to the people in Chinook, I began to realize that I may be missing the point, or not focusing on the right things, with some of the battles I've picked. When you work in an office that is in a more urban setting, it can be easy to focus on the needs of the urban areas and forget the "little guys". I realize we can't hit every single need of every single person we serve. But, going out on outreach trips can sure be eye-opening.

For me, it was eye-opening in several respects. First off, small town USA doesn't necessarily mean the land of no cell phone signal and no WI-FI anymore. The sheriff had a fancy smartphone AND a cool-colored cover. The nearby fire chief also had a smartphone AND uses the mobile version of NWS' EDD. I gotta be honest, I didn't even know we had a mobile version of that site.

Then there's our products/services. The nearby airport manager said our DSS/partner emails we send out are the most helpful thing to him, not the TAFs. I thought it was cool that this small town airport even reads those emails. I mentioned to the sheriff that he could call us anytime for any weather-related help. He replied that after my spotter talk, he may have enough education to not have to call when the next storm approaches the town's summer fair. Does this represent all small towns? Probably not, but I'll bet it's repeated many times over. And, by the way, this is not meant to be seen as negatives about smaller towns, but as the reality of what's actually going on and what is used in smaller towns.

I guess the point is, we can fight all we want for what we THINK small-town USA needs, but after getting out and talking to the people, we may find we are fighting for the wrong things, at least as far as they are concerned. That's not to say that fighting for the needs of big city USA is wrong if it doesn't mesh with small-town USA. For me, small-town USA has simply helped keep things in perspective.

At the same time, this trip also helped me to see that there are things we fight for that I have always assumed were more helpful for larger cities (like the mobile EDD site). Who knew that working on that site, or something similar, may actually help big and small towns. And, while being available to provide support over the phone is great, maybe it's just not for some small towns. I believe our forecasts, warnings, DSS, etc is incredibly important to the mission of the NWS. But, what struck me that day is that all of that MAY not be what is most helpful for some small towns. Maybe outreach and education is our best service to them. Teaching the sheriff how to spot signs of rotation with an incoming storm might just be what helps him best serve his people even more than an email or phone call. When the sheriff said to me that he may not need to call us, it made me think of my kids. One day they will go to college and not have Mom or Dad right there next to them to help make a decision. That's when common sense and parental education comes in. Hopefully we will have taught them enough to make an informed decision. I hope my talk provided the sheriff enough info to make an informed decision whether he is able to reach out to our office or not.

Going forward, it will likely still be tricky trying to decide which battles to pick and which ones to let go of, but this recent interaction with the people we serve really gave me something to chew on. All of these ideas I've held dear may need a dose of ruralness (yes, I think I made up a word) to keep me in check!

Picking Your Battles

Being a husband, a father, and someone who does shift work, I tend to do most of my writing/thinking at night. Perhaps I should change the name of my blog to Roger’s midnight ramblings. Of course, many of the people who probably read this blog (after publishing their grids, of course!) also do shift work. Tonight’s ramblings revolve around navigating through the various passions in our field.

Being passionate is great and, in my opinion, an integral part of what we do. While we probably all share some common passions, there is also diversity in what drives us and that is ok. If everyone in an office/company/TV station is passionate about severe weather, what happens when the next snowstorm comes around? If everyone in research only cared about winter weather, what good is that for severe weather? Diversity in passions is healthy.

Lately, though, I’ve come to see that, if unchecked, passions can be unhealthy at times. See, out of our passions come strong opinions/beliefs. Diversity in passions is a beautiful thing, but it means we don’t all agree on everything. Someone who isn’t as passionate about severe weather may not feel as strongly about certain severe weather-related things as someone who is passionate in that area. Or, maybe you have a case of two people who are passionate about severe weather, but hold very strong and opposing opinions within that passion. It’s these opposing, strong viewpoints that I’ve wrestled with more recently.

I don’t know if this is a part of my personality or not, but I have always struggled with seeing the good in any opposing viewpoint. Not a good place to be! The last two years in the NWS have taught me, more than any other time in my life, that I simply cannot live this way. Realizing this has been an important step for me personally, but putting it into action? Now that’s a whole other ballgame. Keeping an open mind is tough and requires some painstaking effort at times (or, at least, it does for me anyway). Even with this new mindset, there are still certain things that for the life of me I cannot understand how someone could see it differently. In a church, a pastor might ask for an “amen” here, but since this is a blog, can I get a “write on!”?

But here’s the thing. In my experience, some of the things I have felt very strongly about turned out not to be as big of a deal as I made them out to be, or simply misplaced, after actually listening to the opposing side. Man, some of those times I really didn’t want to change my mind. Now, before people start questioning every opinion they hold dear, let me be clear. I do think there are things worth fighting for. Countless people throughout history stood up for what they believed in and positive change came about from it. What the past two years have taught me, though, is that I have to pick my battles.

I’m not saying we need to put all of our opinions under a microscope, but I do think it is worth taking some time to think through those strongly-held opinions to see what our motives might be, what facts support (or disprove) our beliefs, etc. This is a big reason why I blog. Even if no one else reads these, writing helps me to think through issues. Maybe that works for you, maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps sharing things with co-workers or posting your opinion in 160 characters or less works. Maybe it’s thinking on the car ride home. It won’t always be easy, but in my experience it has helped me to figure out which battles are worth fighting and which aren’t. It has also helped me to figure out what things I am probably way off on and which things I might be on to something.

You can probably all think of that person who seems to always pick every…single…little…battle. Perhaps you have been that person. I know I have before! Looking back, I don’t know what I was thinking. When we pick every battle, we run the risk of becoming white noise…a clanging cymbal that people don’t want to hear or don’t take a seriously. In our field, there are a lot of things worth fighting for in my opinion. But, there is a time and place for everything and, in some cases, it just might be that a battle simply isn’t worth fighting at all. I struggle with the idea of letting go of some battles. And, gosh, where do you even start on deciding which to let go of? Perhaps letting go of one or two here and there will help bring about change in those things that are even more important. I can’t tell you what battles you should fight and which you shouldn’t. That is just a part of the sportiness of this whole process. Heck, some things worth fighting for in one company or office may not be worth it in another.

On a quick side not here, in this whole process of picking my battles, I’ve been reminded to show a little grace when others pick every battle. I’ve done it before and maybe many of you have as well. Perhaps you’ve got the picking your battles thing all figured out, but that’s not the case for all of us. It may be annoying when others do this, but try to cut them some slack. You might even be able to help them work through what is important and what isn’t. Several in my office have helped me work through some battles and I am better for it. Whatever you do or wherever you work, there’s a good chance you are part of a team. If we work together through our weaknesses and show a little grace, we are probably all better off for it.

In this struggle of picking our battles, it may be easy to lose a little passion in the process. Don’t let that happen! About 6 months into my career with the NWS, I let this happen and, boy, do I regret it. Just because you may have to back off on some things, doesn’t mean the passion for the job should as well. I think the key is to find that balance of when to stand up and when to back off a bit. Plus, think of it this way. If on the flipside you do pick every battle, you’re probably going to get burnt out. What good does that do you or anyone else? I love seeing people find their niche/their passion. I equally hate seeing people lose their passion. If I can stress anything, please don’t lose that passion! Keep it in check and healthy, but don’t lose it. In the words of Leslie Nielsen, “We’re all counting on you”.

Messaging Significant Events

Over the past few days, a part of our CWA  (NWS Great Falls) has been pounded with heavy snow (here's a PDF from our office with some of the impressive snowfall amounts, records, and pictures). And, when I say pounded, I mean 30-50+" of snow, avalanches, roads nearly impassable or closed, roofs/buildings endanger of collapsing, emergency declarations, people stranded and/or unable to travel, etc. Perhaps pounded isn't a strong enough word, which brings me to the challenge of the day. How do we approach events like these from a forecasting and messaging standpoint?

I am a firm believer that a good message starts with a good forecast and good forecast starts with sound science. For me personally, my approach to forecasting (and this is by no means the only way to do it) has been to pour over the data, then build a forecast that best represents what I am seeing from model data, current observations, input from other forecasters, experience, etc. From there, I step back, look at the finished product, and then try to determine what, if anything, needs messaging. This is all well and good, but what happens when the finished product shows the potential, or even likelihood, of an anomalous event?

Perhaps more experienced forecasters than I don't struggle with this as much, but while working this recent event, stepping back and looking at the forecast prior to the event got me wondering if the ridiculous snowfall amounts I was coming up with were valid. So much so, as soon as I calculated my snowfall amounts, me and the other forecaster I was working with immediately picked up the phone and called a neighboring office that would also be impacted. When they answered, their response was the same. They also were, somewhat dumbfoundedly, looking at the amounts they were coming up with. In fact, in their words, they said, "We [the two forecasters at the other office] have been staring at our computers trying to figure out if these amounts are real."

Turns out, those amounts were real. But, hindsight is always 20/20 and, for many of us in the moment, I think there can be a hesitation to put out such a forecast. For me (and I assume I'm not alone in this), there is that concern of, well what happens if this doesn't actually pan out? This points to a larger question. What is more helpful/harmful? To see the potential and not put the forecast out, or to put it out? If you forecast the high-end event and it happens...awesome! If you forecast the high-end event and it doesn't happen...not so good. But, what if you don't forecast the high-end event and it does happen? Which is worse...forecasting the event and it not happening or not forecasting the event and it happening? Both have negative consequences and this is where the challenge comes in.

Sometimes, I think there is a tendency to back off from higher-end events. Let's face it, oftentimes at least one or two models show a worst-case scenario, only to back off as the event draws near. Or, maybe they never back off, only to be way off in the end. This isn't always the case, but it does happen. And, then, there is the issue of over-hyping an event or the boy who cried wolf syndrome.

But, at the same time, when even one model indicates the potential for a higher-end event, it probably isn't prudent to immediately write it off (outliers do verify at times). And, while never 100% perfect, I think this is where sound science, experience, and collaboration comes in. If after all of this, there is above average, or maybe even average, confidence, perhaps it is time to go ahead and pull the trigger on messaging the event as a higher-end event. Afterall, that is part of our job as Meteorologists. To inform people of the weather. If the weather is going to be really bad, people need to know so they can prepare. We can't make people prepare, but we can at least stress the expected magnitude of an event.

If there was a Messaging Hall of Fame, two statements/events come to mind to be included (and, of course, this is in now way an exhaustive list!) 1) The statement issued by NWS New Orleans prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. That's not a statement any NWS office issues on a regular basis. 2) The higher-end wording by SPC, NWS offices, and the media during the April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak. Both of these events fell outside of the norm, in my opinion, and forecasters had to make the not-always-easy go/no go call on these higher-end watches, warnings, and statements. Should all events be messaged just as hard or do higher-end events need stronger wording?

At the moment, I would tend to lean towards higher-end events need to be messaged harder. A 40" snowfall in a non-mountainous area probably deserves higher-end wording/statements than a 10" snowfall. Winter Storm Warnings, for example, would likely be issued for both, but 40" has the potential to cause more significant impacts/disruptions to everyday life than a 10" snowfall. Both are significant, but again, the challenge is how to approach these higher-end events.

In our case, wind wasn't much of a concern for much of the hardest hit areas, so we felt that a Blizzard Watch/Warning wasn't warranted. Granted, it would certainly grab people's attention. I would imagine, and this is purely speculation, that a Tornado Watch also grabs a lot of attention and probably even more so than a Severe T-storm Watch. But, do you put out a Tornado Watch if you are not expecting any tornadoes? I hadn't thought of this before, but could it be that we approach winter storms like convective events and have PDS Winter Storm Warnings in addition to regular Winter Storm Warnings? For our CWA, I think this event would have justified such a warning. 10" of snow in a snow-prone area is definitely warning-worthy and causes significant issues. But, even here, 40" basically shuts everything down. The local DOT here mentioned in a statement that they are going to have to bring in heavy equipment to remove all the snow and that it would take multiple days to get through. Cars are buried, roads impassable, roofs are struggling to hold the amazing weight of the newly fallen snow. That's not your average winter storm. One of the shifts after mine added wording into the original warning, stating this is a dangerous situation. I thought this was a great idea and reminded me of the kind of enhanced wording SPC uses in PDS Tornado/Severe T-storm Watches.

I think it is always important to look back at an event as an office and as individuals to see how things played out and what, if anything, could be improved on. For me, I put out the higher-end forecast, but wasn't bold enough to go all in with the messaging, even after collaboration with national centers and a neighboring office. Basically, I used the process I mentioned above, but didn't fully apply it, unfortunately. I think the fear of being wrong and the fear of over-hyping or messaging too strongly got the best of me. It's important to make sure you're not missing something, but at the same time, if after a careful scientific/collaborative process, confidence is still above average, I think at a certain point you just have to pull the trigger. I think the lesser of two evils is people preparing for an event that doesn't happen as opposed to not being told of an event and it happening. The latter case, using a snow example, has the potential to leave people stranded with no food, water, power, etc, because who is going to prepare for an event they don't know is coming? Having extra food, water, candles, etc doesn't hurt anyone, but NOT having those things and then NOT having a way to get those things is much worse in my opinion. Perhaps these types of events only happen a few times in any of our careers, but when they do, don't fall into the trap I did of letting fear prevent a stronger-worded message from going out.

On a quick side-note, this event has reminded me that, no matter how good the models become in the future, I still hold firmly to the idea that an understanding of the science behind what the models spit out is vitally important to our messaging. Knowing WHY a model is showing something can help us explain HOW an event is going to play out and even know what to stress that even the best models might be missing out on.

Spaghetti Plots, Outliers, and Opinions

I've been an operational Meteorologist for almost 7 years now, working in both the private sector and the public sector (ie. NWS). Both sides have presented interesting challenges that I'm sure many can relate to, regardless of what sector you find yourself in. As for the NWS, though, that tenure has been a shorter one as I just started on this side almost exactly 2 years ago.

I absolutely love my job and have a hard time seeing myself doing anything else. But, loving your job doesn't mean it is always easy. Here in Montana, where I currently work, it has been a very active winter season thus far. Personally, this has offered some great experience for me as I still consider myself a newbie with the NWS. Lately, it has really hit home just how challenging the role of an operational Meteorologist can be (and, of course, this is not limited to NWS folks).

Take the upcoming week, for example. For much of the western US, this will likely be a very active week in what has already been an active winter so far. For our office, this might be the most active week we've had yet. Lately, our biggest concerns have been 'will it snow' and 'how much will fall'. This week, though, we've got a clash of Arctic and Pacific air and where that boundary will be, p-type issues, multiple (and I mean, multiple) shortwaves of varying strength, timing issues, and all on top of the normal will it snow and how much snow issues. Add to that issues surrounding blowing snow, wet vs dry snow, basically 6 straight days of accumulating snow and how to message that without confusing people, etc. I'd say we've got our hands full this week. While every week or season isn't like this, it highlights how quickly things can become sporty for the operational MET.

I must re-iterate, though, that while the above may seem like a negative, I see it as a unique, and even fun at times, challenge. Maybe that sentiment isn't shared among all METs, but fun or not, it is a challenge just the same.

I've watched as our office has wrestled through recent and upcoming events and I imagine this regularly plays out at most, if not all, offices (NWS, private, media, etc). Several months ago, my son and I were having our almost daily tackle time and, unfortunately, we wrastled a bit too hard and he ended up getting hurt. Fortunately, it was a mostly minor issue, but since then we have changed our wrestling time just a bit. The point is, wrestling is sometimes accompanied by painful / difficult moments and this also goes with wrestling through the challenges faced in each weather event.

But, wrestling isn't bad. For my 2-year old son and I, it is a bonding time. For METs, I truly believe it is a good thing as well...an opportunity for growth and a chance to improve the service for our customers. But, growth isn't always easy. The weather community is filled with some incredibly smart folks, but putting a bunch of smart people together doesn't mean they will all agree.

Our office usually has a map discussion in the mornings (M-F) where we mostly talk about the current and expected weather issues, if any. But, on many occasions it has turned into an open forum for ideas on all things operations, usually with the current weather issue of the day the centerpiece around which the discussion flows. I love when the briefings become forums. Another good example is #wxtwitter (for those not on Twitter, "weather twitter" is basically on ongoing and unofficial open forum that brings together METs from all sectors). Just like our map briefings, "weather Twitter" isn't always the most subdued experience, but I think both are great and necessary.

I am learning that each person's opinion is important, no matter what your background. Now, that doesn't mean each opinion is a good one. Looking back, I have had (and still have) my share of opinions that, in hindsight, were not that good, or were too biased towards one idea or another, and so on. In the book, "Crucial Conversations" (Switzler, Grenny, Patterson, McMillan), the authors talk about a "shared pool of meaning". To me, each office, and the weather community as a whole, has a shared pool of meaning...a place where thoughts, ideas, and suggestions come together to help shape the way we operate. As they point out, though, the key is to keep this pool of meaning open and safe. In other words, EVERYONE is important enough to add an opinion, idea, etc into that "pool". An intern's ideas shouldn't be dismissed simply because he/she doesn't have as much experience as Forecaster A who has been working for 30 years. Neither should someone who tends to favor "old-school" ways of doing things be prevented from sharing ideas because his/hers tend to be seen as "anti-progressive".

But, as the authors of "Crucial Conversations" point out, it's not just about not dismissing ideas, it's also about making it an open pool and encouraging others to join in. We probably all know that guy / gal who has an opinion, but never or rarely shares it. As important as not dismissing ideas is, it is equally important to welcome others' opinions. If someone gives an opinion and they get their head bitten off by those who already have ideas in the pool, what good is that? There could be more great ideas out there that just aren't coming to the surface simply out of fear. Wx Twitter and map discussion forums are great, but I believe it is important to be careful not to scare people off. We ALL have had at least one bad idea or two (afterall, no one is perfect), so someone else giving a potentially bad idea doesn't mean they should be shunted for their opinion. I feel like this "safe pool" as the authors call it, is fostered by keeping dialogue open, sharing ideas, but being careful not to alienate people. If someone has a bad idea, it's fine to tell them, but I think it has to be done in a respectful manner in order to keep the ideas flowing.

For me, one of my personal challenges has been this idea of a shared pool of meaning. There are some people I tend to dismiss before they even open their mouth because of my view of them. I'm basically saying, 'Well, your opinion doesn't really count in my mind because of [and fill in the blank]'. This is wrong and by doing this I may actually be slowing progress, not the other way around. I came into the NWS with all these ideas and passions and, honestly, for some of these I just couldn't see how someone could see things any differently. And, if they did, well then I would just write them off as less passionate, old-school, less caring, etc. That is NOT a way to start a new job nor is it anyway to operate in any job and I have had to work really hard on this lately.

Going back to our weather pattern, it lends itself to many different opinions on how to handle the situation. As I mentioned before, it is likely that part, if not all, of our CWA will see some degree of accumulating snow each day for the next 4-5 days, but not from the same system. So, do you go with a 5-day warning, separate warnings for each event, or some combination of the two? Is one way more confusing than the other? What about your customer's needs? Each system will likely have some breaks/lulls in precip, but if they are only 6-12 hour breaks, will the public / customers even notice and/or see it as multiple events instead of one event? How do you handle this on social media or other communications methods without information overload? Will one shortwave be more impactful than another? Do you only message that one and not the others? What about antecedent conditions? It's winter, shouldn't people just expect snow / cold weather? This is a lot to process and I'm probably forgetting something. Ok, let the forum begin!

And this is where it gets about as messy as a 500mb spaghetti plot. Multiple members with multiple ideas, including those outliers. There may be decent agreement on one event (aka. topic), but not on others. And, just because there is decent agreement on a topic, doesn't mean the consensus is right. Sometimes those outliers nail it!

 In the operational setting, sometimes there is adequate time to mull over all these different solutions, but other times you simply have to go with your gut and pull the trigger on some product, message, weather story, graphic, email, etc, knowing that others might disagree and/or that it might not be the best answer. You can't mull over a Tornado Warning / alert for an hour...people's houses will be gone by then. The challenge of our job is that there isn't always a right answer. Even in the cases where there is probably a "best" answer, it may be tough to find. But, better when possible, that you try to find that best/better option as a team than as an individual. Pull from that shared pool of meaning (ie. that spaghetti plot) and don't be like me and ignore the "outliers" (ie. those folks I have struggled to not dismiss their ideas) or those "models" that always seem to have a bias. Sometimes the outliers / biased models are dead-on.

I'm not a big New Year's resolution kind a guy, but a goal of mine for this new year is to work harder to listen to all opinions even if I strongly disagree with some. Agreeing to disagree is fine, but I can't agree to disagree with an opinion that I haven't even listened to. That's like choosing to not even looking at a certain model's output because it is usually an outlier or biased. And, heck, turns out my opinions are not always right nor am I the only one with good opinions (whatever the criteria even is on that). Who knew?!? Will you join me in this goal? I hope weather twitter and map discussions keep going strong this year and that everyone, myself included, will keep an open mind to all the various opinions with the goal of trying to find that best way to serve our customers.