AMS 2024 Session Highlight: The Evolution of Observation: How the AMS Measurements Committee Can Better Serve the Community

A Town Hall at the AMS 104th Annual Meeting

With measurement techniques and systems rapidly evolving in response to a greater need for precise atmospheric and planetary surface observation, and technological advances allowing for observations of conditions where none were previously possible, there’s a growing need to engage our active AMS community to discuss the future of weather observing. That opportunity comes Thursday morning at a Town Hall by the AMS Committee on Measurements. Information will be presented regarding recent changes to the Committee, its current focuses, and plans for the future. Attendees at the AMS Annual Meeting this week in Baltimore are invited to participate in open discussion and provide feedback. Join us Thursday, 1 February at 12:15 p.m. U.S. Eastern for this session!

We spoke with the Town Hall’s organizer and speaker Andrew Schwartz of UC Berkeley to learn more.

What was the impetus for organizing this Town Hall Meeting?

Andrew Schwartz: We’ve had a lot of changes to our committee over the last several years and want to keep our community informed of what is occurring and what we’re planning. We also want to make sure that we’re accurately responding to the needs of our community and including them in our future activities.

What are some of the challenges that the Committee on Measurements hopes to address?

AS: We want to develop a better understanding of the community’s interests and needs to better guide our activities as a committee and develop more engaging content at our conferences and symposia.

What will AMS 104th attendees gain from the Town Hall?

AS: Attendees of the Town Hall will gain a better understanding of who comprises our committee, the work that we have been doing, and initiatives that we are working on for the future. They will also have the chance to provide feedback on our activities.

Featured image: Snowmageddon snowfall at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, taken February 6, 2010. Washington’s National Airport had 17.8″ while Dulles International Airport measured a whopping 32.4″ from the storm—the first of two intense East Coast snowstorms in less than a week. Image credit: NOAA.

About the AMS 104th Annual Meeting

The American Meteorological Society’s Annual Meeting brings together thousands of weather, water, and climate scientists, professionals, and students from across the United States and the world. Taking place 28 January to 1 February, 2024, the AMS 104th Annual Meeting is exploring the latest scientific and professional advances in areas from renewable energy to space weather, weather and climate extremes, environmental health, and more. In addition, cross-cutting interdisciplinary sessions explore the theme of Living in a Changing Environment, especially the role of the weather, water, and climate enterprise in helping improve society’s response to climate and environmental change. The Annual Meeting is being held at the Baltimore Convention Center, with online/hybrid participation options. Learn more at annual.ametsoc.org

Be There: GATE 50th Anniversary Celebration

GATE observing network. (From Zhang et al., 2022.)

Fifty years ago this summer, the most ambitious tropical field experiment ever attempted began along the coast of West Africa. Amidst the backdrop of the Cold War, GATE—the Global Atmospheric Research Program’s (GARP) Atlantic Tropical Experiment—successfully involved more than 5,000 scientists, technicians, and supporting staff from 72 countries in a campaign over the Atlantic Ocean to investigate the structure of the tropical atmosphere with emphases on tropical convective organization and the mutual interaction between convection and the larger scale flow. This enormous achievement will be celebrated Thursday, 1 February, at the 104th AMS Annual Meeting in Baltimore with a Town Hall Meeting, a luncheon, and three scientific sessions.

CELEBRATION EVENTSLocation: Holiday Ballrooms 1-3 (Second Floor, Hilton Baltimore Inner Harbor)Times
Town HallThe GATE Experience and Beyond7-8 a.m.
SessionGATE 50th Anniversary Celebration I8:30-10 a.m.
Luncheon*GATE 50th Anniversary Luncheon12:15 – 1:30 p.m.
SessionGATE 50th Anniversary Celebration II1:45 – 3 p.m.
SessionGATE 50th Anniversary Celebration III4:30 – 6 p.m.
*The Luncheon is a ticketed event. Tickets are $65 and can be purchased through the Annual Meeting registration

The celebration includes GATE veterans who will share their experiences in planning and executing the field program, as well as speakers reflecting on how their careers were influenced by GATE and how other tropical field experiments followed GATE’s footprints to advance the science of tropical atmospheric convection and air-sea interaction. Visions for and planning of future tropical field experiments will also be discussed.

To learn more, we reached out to co-chairs Andrea M. Jenney of Oregon State University, Chidong Zhang of NOAA’s PMEL, and Terrence R. Nathan of UC Davis who provided the following responses.

What was the impetus for organizing this Town Hall Meeting and these sessions (aside from the 50th anniversary)?

To provide a platform for the Gaters (GATE veterans—only a few of them are still with us and they are in their 70s–90s) to tell the community how this historic field campaign was planned and executed, how it shaped the careers of the students and postdocs who participated, many of whom became leaders of our field, and how its impressive legacy continues to influence research today.

Who are the celebration events designed to attract and why?

Everyone, from the Gaters to current early career scientists who may have benefited from GATE but don’t know much about it.

What about the GATE observations make them an unmatched legacy in the atmospheric sciences?

It revolutionized our view of tropical deep convection from isolated hot towers to organized mesoscale systems.
The data have been used since to guide global model parameterization of atmospheric deep convection. It mobilized the international community to work together toward a common goal on an unprecedented and unsurpassed scale.

What has GATE taught us about conducting field research?

Political conflicts do not have to hinder scientists from working together. GATE took place during the Cold War, which left a substantial mark on it (GATE had to be relocated from the Pacific to the Atlantic). Nevertheless, scientists from both the East (including the USSR) and West came together, collaborated, and jointly conducted the field campaign.

Big science needs national and international collaborations and coordinations. No single funding agency or single country could support GATE on its scale. GATE has since remained as the grandest tropical field campaign in the atmospheric sciences ever.

Doing excellent science requires passions and fortitude. As the Gaters will attest to during this event, they went through tremendous hardships during GATE but they loved what they did and they met unanticipated difficulties with humor.

What will AMS 104th attendees gain from the town hall and sessions?

Some untold history of GATE. Many stories and personal reflections from the Gaters. How GATE inspired scientists of new generations. How the research community has continued the GATE legacy and is planning to visit the original GATE site in the Pacific that had to be abandoned because of geopolitics at that time.

About the AMS 104th Annual Meeting

The American Meteorological Society’s Annual Meeting brings together thousands of weather, water, and climate scientists, professionals, and students from across the United States and the world. Taking place 28 January to 1 February, 2024, the AMS 104th Annual Meeting is exploring the latest scientific and professional advances in areas from renewable energy to space weather, weather and climate extremes, environmental health, and more. In addition, cross-cutting interdisciplinary sessions explore the theme of Living in a Changing Environment, especially the role of the weather, water, and climate enterprise in helping improve society’s response to climate and environmental change. The Annual Meeting is being held at the Baltimore Convention Center, with online/hybrid participation options. Learn more at annual.ametsoc.org

Be There: The Kuo-Nan Liou Symposium

Highlighting Key Sessions at AMS 2024

The Kuo-Nan Liou Symposium at the 104th AMS Annual Meeting will celebrate Dr. Kuo-Nan Liou (1943-2021), a giant in the field of atmospheric physics who made crucial contributions in the areas of atmospheric radiation, remote sensing, and the greenhouse impacts of clouds and aerosols. Liou (pictured at right, image courtesy of Penny Jennings), received numerous accolades during his career, including the AMS’s Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal and Charney Award, and he was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team who received the Nobel Peace Price in 2007.

We asked Symposium Co-Chair Ping Yang, University Distinguished Professor and David Bullock Harris Chair in Geosciences at Texas A&M University, about the Symposium and Dr. Liou’s impact. Here are some of his answers:

Dr. Kuo-Nan Liou (image credit: Penny Jennings)

Why are the areas of Dr. Liou’s research so important to understand right now?

As one of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world, Dr. Liou made seminal contributions to atmospheric and climate sciences in many areas, particularly in atmospheric radiation. His radiative transfer model has been widely used in weather and climate models and satellite remote sensing implementations, and thus plays a central role in determining the radiation budget of the earth-atmosphere system and cloud-aerosol-radiation interactions and feedback in a changing world.

Radiative transfer is important because almost all the energy that drives the Earth’s atmosphere and ocean currents originates from the sun. Therefore, the climate of the Earth-atmosphere system is mainly determined by the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere and the surface since radiation is the only mechanism by which the Earth-atmosphere system gains or loses energy.

What can attendees expect from the Symposium?

This symposium honors the legacy of Dr. Kuo-Nan Liou by bringing together researchers to share knowledge, foster collaborations and address current challenges in the fields where Dr. Kuo-Nan Liou left a lasting impact. Attendees, both in-person and virtual, can benefit from gaining insights into the latest research and advancements in these areas. Session topics include “Interactions Among Climate, Radiation, Clouds, Aerosols, and Surface”, “Radiative Transfer Theory & Spectroscopy,” “Remote Sensing of Clouds, Aerosols, and Surface Properties,” and “Light Scattering and Applications.” The Symposium will provide a platform for networking and engaging with experts and a forum for disseminating cutting-edge research findings.

The Symposium will delve into the forefront issues within these research areas. Noteworthy presentation topics include the lidar remote sensing of snow depth and density, sub-millimeter-wave remote sensing of ice clouds, Tibetan Plateau snowpack loss and its connection to extreme events, and more.

The first session aligns with the central focus of the 2024 AMS Annual Meeting, “Living in a Changing Environment.” It features invited speakers Drs. Ruby Leung, Dennis Hartmann, V. Ramaswamy, Zhanqing Li, Jonathan Jiang, and Yongkang Xue. 

How did Dr. Liou influence the fields of atmospheric and climate science?

Dr. Liou’s work left a profound mark on the atmospheric and climate sciences due to his seminal contributions to radiative transfer, atmospheric optics, cloud-aerosol-radiation-climate interactions, and remote sensing. He was a pioneering researcher who demonstrated that atmospheric radiation should no longer be consigned to the fringes of meteorology, but instead should take a central place in the new world of climate science.

His book, “An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation,” now in its second edition (with the first edition published in 1980), has been an invaluable resource for students and researchers around the world studying atmospheric radiation and its applications in climate science and remote sensing. Accepting the Rossby Medal in 2018, Prof. Liou talked about how his own early-career exposure to books like Chandrasekhar’s “Radiative Transfer” and Born & Wolf’s “Principles of Optics” spurred his innovations. For example, his simplified solutions for understanding solar and heat energy transfer problems, and his application of geometric optics to understand the scattering, absorption, and polarization properties of soot aerosols and irregular ice crystals.

He also humbly thanked his graduate students at the University of Utah and UCLA, saying, “They deserve to share, in equal measure, any recognition I have received, including this great honor from AMS.” We, the organizers of the Symposium, in turn are grateful to Dr. Liou. Along with his exceptional impact on the atmospheric sciences, he was a true role model as a leader and educator.

Kuo-Nan Liou receiving the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal at the 2018 AMS Annual Meeting and celebrating with his family, students, and colleagues. Photos provided by Liou Symposium co-chairs.

The Kuo-Nan Liou Symposium will be held Tuesday, 30 January, 2024 at the AMS 104th Annual Meeting, in Baltimore and online; it will feature invited presentations and a poster session, along with a special luncheon. Learn more about the Symposium and view the program.

What Do Non-Scientists Need to Understand about Peer Review?

Thoughts from AMS 2024 Editor’s Award Recipients

Peer Review Week 2023 logo

Understanding the role of peer review in science is vital not only for scientists themselves, but also for all of us who live in a society that relies on scientific research. Each September during Peer Review Week, AMS and other scholarly publishers highlight the essential role that peer review plays in scholarly communication.

In this first of two Peer Review Week posts, we’re hearing from some of AMS’s outstanding peer reviewers, recipients of the 2024 Editor’s Award, about what they think non-researchers need to understand about peer review.

At a basic level it is a check on, “do I believe the results presented here and the implications that are claimed?The check is made by other researchers working independently in the field. The checking of a single paper isn’t exhaustive, but there is an ongoing process—results and ideas established in one paper will, if they are of any significance, be re-examined and developed further in subsequent papers, which will themselves be peer reviewed.

Dr. Peter Haynes, Cambridge University
Dr. David Bodine

For non-researchers, I think it’s important to understand that peer review requires substantial effort … by volunteer reviewers, editors, and [the] scientists submitting manuscripts. A well-coordinated review process by all involved improves the quality and ensures the integrity of scientific research.

Dr. David Bodine, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Elizabeth Yankovsky

The peer review process is the only barrier standing between the writing of a scientific study and its publication. It is very easy for an unsubstantiated or erroneous paper to set an entire field back by years. In my opinion, the peer review process is as important as the research that goes into a given paper. … A given scientist may have one perspective and associated biases. Through peer review, the results are assessed by other scientists and are judged against the state of knowledge of the field. To push our boundary with the unknown forward, scientists must rely on both the historical backbone of their field as well as thorough review by their modern-day peers.

Dr. Elizabeth Yankovsky, New York University

Just because a paper was published after undergoing “peer review” does not make it absolutely correct or perfect, nor is it the final message on that idea. Unfortunately I feel the phrase “peer reviewed” is often used to imply some absolute consensus on a subject has been reached, when in reality it’s an ongoing, necessary criticism of the science that we do. As scientists we are constantly peer-reviewing each other’s work, and this may spark new, contrary ideas to be published that refute earlier findings.

Dr. Luke Madaus, Jupiter Intelligence
Dr. Sarah Buckland

Popular culture oftentimes misconstrues science in either the extreme of being purely political/agenda-driven or being the ultimate source of truth without question. The truth is, science is not ultimate, and understandings of processes and concepts are dynamic, and, as is especially evident in interdisciplinary research, scientists do have perspectives shaped by experiences. While I also cannot deny that bias exists in scientific fields and that contrasting perspectives may filter out at times, authentically anonymous and double-anonymous peer review processes (i.e., the reviewer not knowing the authors’ name(s)), act as guardrails to significantly reduce bias. [If] these processes remain clean and the selected reviewers are indeed experts in the field of the papers that they review, this significantly aids in ensuring that the end product is of the highest quality. The existence of these processes is why academic journals are deemed among the most credible sources of scientific information.

Dr. Sarah Buckland, University of the West Indies

Dr. Mimi Hughes

I think what I wish non-researchers understood about the scientific review process is how many eyes are on these papers before they’re published, and how that regularly improves the science and writing of the end-product. Most reviewers take the responsibility very seriously, and indeed are usually hesitant when they haven’t “found enough to fix” in a paper they review. It is typically a truly rigorous process.

Dr. Mimi Hughes, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory

Dr. Aaron Hill

I think non-researchers should know that peer review is only good and valuable when it is conducted from an unbiased position. It is vitally important that authors receive unbiased, external perspectives on their work in order to ensure that any gaps or misunderstandings can be addressed, and that the science is technically sound. Peer review is just ONE step in the scientific process as well, and sometimes bad work slips through the cracks of review. But peer review is a critical component to upholding and advancing science.

Dr. Aaron Hill, Colorado State University

Dr. Qiaohong Sun

Peer review serves as a crucial method for the scientific community to uphold the quality and credibility of scientific information accessible to the public. A paper passing peer review doesn’t guarantee absolute perfection, it indicates a level of examination and approval by experts in the field to some extent at the current time.

Dr. Qiaohong Sun, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology

Dr. Sebastian Lerch

Peer review is a critical control mechanism in the scientific process. Mistakes can happen and may still get through the process. However, the collective nature of peer review and subsequent scrutiny by the scientific community help correct errors over time. This in particular highlights the importance of making research reproducible by publishing data and code.

Dr. Sebastian Lerch, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Dr. Andrew Feldman

It works! It is the main mechanism that keeps science reliable and transparent. Scientists respect and cite published work. In order to get science published, it needs to be read by 2-4 anonymous colleagues and editors and then revised. Even when it goes wrong and a paper is published with an error or not-well-supported argument, researchers are good at detecting this after the fact. It is a robust process that keeps the advancement of knowledge at a high-quality and transparent level.

Dr. Andrew Feldman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

When Wildfires Know No Boundaries, Scientists Must Cross Disciplines

The U.S. Capitol building viewed from afar during the wildfire smoke event on June 7, 2023. Photo courtesy of Natasha Dacic.

Takeaways from the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium

Guest post by Natasha Dacic, PhD Candidate at the University of Michigan

The western part of the United States continually suffers from wildfires and smoke every year, but in early June, regions of the Midwest and eastern parts of the country experienced unhealthy air quality as smoke from Canadian wildfires was transported into these regions. Cities like Washington, D.C., experienced some of the worst air quality levels in recent years. The smoke that engulfed the capital was a stark reminder that events like wildfires have far-reaching consequences.

I began to wonder if policymakers would be more attuned to the urgency for climate action now that the Nation’s Capital was experiencing some of the consequences that could become more prevalent in the near future. Coincidentally, I was in D.C. that week for the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium, and I had the opportunity to hear policymakers and federal officials comment on the wildfire smoke and how it pertains to the science policy they work on. 

As a scientist passionate about the intersection of climate and policy, the Summer Policy Colloquium was an enlightening experience for me. It brought together federal officials and Congressional staffers from various disciplines to discuss their career journeys, responsibilities, and pressing environmental issues. Several science policy experts commented on air quality and the broader implications of wildfires, recognizing that these are not isolated incidents but rather a component of a larger system affected by climate change and human activities, and not limited to a single country or region. Wildfires, driven by extreme heat, droughts, and other climate-related factors, have become increasingly common and devastating worldwide. 

In response to questions addressing the poor air quality, speakers emphasized the need for collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers, and communities to tackle these complex challenges. The co-production of knowledge emerged as a theme throughout these discussions, and it quickly became evident that policymakers rely on expert knowledge and active participation of interested parties from various sectors in order to craft effective policy. This is one important way scientists can get involved.

Natasha Dacic (black shirt) and peers discussing policy issues at the AMS 2023 Summer Policy Colloquium. Photo: AMS staff.

As I listened to these conversations, I couldn’t help but reflect on my own work and the importance of co-production of knowledge in addressing environmental issues. I worked with a group of faculty and students in the Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering at the University of Michigan to develop a pilot course to provide hands-on experience engaging with local communities. Many geoscience academic departments do not mandate this type of coursework–yet I believe that as scientists, it is essential for us to engage not only in research but also in the application of our knowledge. The Summer Policy Colloquium served as a reminder that we have a responsibility to communicate our findings to policymakers, advocate for evidence-based decision-making, and work hand in hand with communities affected by these environmental challenges.

The colloquium also highlighted the importance of academia and scientists being more active in applying their knowledge to real-world problems. While research and publication are important, they must be accompanied by active engagement with policymakers and communities to ensure that scientific findings translate into meaningful action. By actively participating in the policy-making process, scientists can contribute their expertise and help shape policies that address all aspects of science and more importantly, climate change.

Photo at top: The U.S. Capitol building viewed from afar during the wildfire smoke event on June 7, 2023. Photo courtesy of Natasha Dacic.


About the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium

The AMS Summer Policy Colloquium provides an overview of policy basics and decision-making in the earth and atmospheric sciences, along with opportunities to meet and dialogue with federal officials, Congressional staffers, and other decision-makers. Aimed at early and mid-level federal managers, scientists, private-sector executives, university faculty, and selected graduate students and fellows, the Colloquium helps participants build skills and contacts, gauge interest in science policy and program leadership, and explore selected issues in depth. View the 2023 SPC agenda here [PDF].

Careers’ Worth of Broadcast Conference Memories

Celebrating the 50th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology

The 50th AMS Conference on Broadcast Meteorology took place last week, 21-23 June 2023, in Phoenix, Arizona–more than six decades after the first Broadcast conference in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1956. The conference has been a source of cutting-edge information on the art and science of broadcasting the weather, encounters with industry greats, and collaborations that last lifetimes. To help celebrate, we asked several longtime broadcast meteorologists to share their memories with us, plus advice and insights on how the field has changed. The following is the first of three posts featuring their responses.

What are some of your memorable moments from past sessions of the Conference on Broadcast Meteorology?

“My first conference was in Boston in 1981. I remember sitting way in the back and feeling kind of lost and insignificant among all the legends around me. All of a sudden a hand was extended to me and I turned to my right. There sat Harry Volkman! Harry introduced himself and asked my name, and we had a very nice conversation. I never forgot how kind he was to a ‘kid’ weather-caster – Harry was always one of my heroes and someone I still try to emulate.

Today, I still keep that experience in mind when I meet young up-and-coming meteorologists. I hope that I might help inspire them to have a successful career.”

Mike Nelson, Denver7 Chief Meteorologist, KMGH, Denver, Colorado
Left two photos: Harry Volkman; right photo: Mike Nelson at KMOX in the 1980s. Photos courtesy of Mike Nelson.

“I’ve attended nearly every conference since ~1979. I was chair of the broadcast board [for the 1985 conference in Honolulu, Hawai’i], and Mike Smith from Wichita was program chair. Initial thought was that TV news directors would never permit their meteorologists to travel to Hawai’i. Were we wrong! We had record attendance. We programmed the day to start and very early – 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. or so, given people were mostly on Eastern/Central end time. In the afternoon, everyone was on their own to enjoy the island.”

Todd Glickman, Senior Director, Corporate Relations at MIT
Peter Leavitt, President of WSI Corporation, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Bruce Schwoegler, Chief Meteorologist of WBZ-TV Boston, at the 15th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology in Honolulu, HI. Photo courtesy of Todd Glickman.
Evelyn Mazur, Director of Meetings at AMS, Brad Field from Hartford, Bill Kamal from Miami, Fred Gadomski of Penn State, and Ken Spengler, Executive Director of AMS, at the 15th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology in Honolulu, HI. Photo courtesy of Todd Glickman.
Photos from the 15th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology in Honolulu, Hawai’i, 1985. Top: Peter Leavitt, President of WSI Corporation, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Bruce Schwoegler, Chief Meteorologist of WBZ-TV Boston. Bottom: Evelyn Mazur, Director of Meetings at AMS, Brad Field from Hartford, Bill Kamal from Miami, Fred Gadomski of Penn State, and Ken Spengler, Executive Director of AMS. Photos courtesy of Todd Glickman.

“My first AMS Broadcaster’s conference, and first presentation, was 50 years ago… 1973 at historic Cape Cod. The legendary Don Kent with his Boston accent was most kind with his comments.”

Joe Witte, Climate Outreach Specialist, Aquent, Pasadena, California

What’s been valuable to you about these conferences?

“AMS Broadcast conferences have given me knowledge, professional exposure, and lifelong friendships with like-minded people.”

Alan Sealls, AMS Fellow, CBM, Past Seal Board Chair; Chief Meteorologist at NBC15, WPMI-TV, Mobile, Alabama

“The AMS Broadcast Conference helps me stay up-to-date on the latest in the industry from both the meteorology side and the broadcast side. It’s a great opportunity to connect with my peers in the field and provides an excellent opportunity to learn from each other and experts in various genres of meteorology and climate.As the conference organizer one year, I learned valuable leadership, planning, and organizational skills.”

Lisa Spencer, Chief Meteorologist, News4, Nashville

“I have been broadcasting the weather in Montgomery, Alabama, for 45 years on TV and radio. I attended my first AMS Broadcast Conference in 1984 in Clearwater, Florida. Phoenix [was] my 25th broadcast conference. 25 out of 50. These conferences are so important to me. The learning process never ends. Also, the conference experience has shown me America. And each year I look forward to catching up with my fraternity of friends in this incredible business.”

Rich Thomas, Chief Meteorologist, Bluewater Broadcasting, Montgomery, Alabama

“The Broadcasters Conferences have provided numerous long-lasting memories and friends.”

Joe Witte, Climate Outreach Specialist, Aquent, Pasadena, California

“I attended my first AMS Broadcast Conference in 1993 Charleston, South Carolina, on the hunt for my first job as a broadcast meteorologist. Within a few weeks landed in Johnson City, Tennessee. My advice to all: network, network, and network!

I’ve gained so much from each conference. Presentations by experts on case studies and what was learned. New technology and its impact within the broadcast industry on what we do daily!

What I cherish the most: long-lasting friendships among colleagues. Each conference is a reunion. In some way we’ve all impacted each other in boosting confidence and in being challenged to deliver daily the best information in helping viewers plan and be safe!”

Yolanda Amadeo, Chief Meteorologist, WALB News, Albany, Georgia

(Left to right) Dr. Marshall Shepherd, Yolanda Amadeo, Janice Huff, and Alan Sealls. Photo courtesy of Yolanda Amadeo.

About 50Broadcast

The 50th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology took place in Phoenix, Arizona, June 21-23, 2023. It was organized by the American Meteorological Society Board on Broadcast Meteorology and chaired by Danielle Breezy and Vanessa Alonso. If you registered for the meeting, you can view presentation recordings here.

Header photos (clockwise from top left): Evelyn Mazur, Director of Meetings at AMS, Brad Field from Hartford, Bill Kamal from Miami, Fred Gadomski of Penn State, and Ken Spengler, Executive Director of AMS (photo courtesy of Todd Glickman). Yolanda Amadeo and Jim Cantore (photo courtesy of Yolanda Amadeo). Mike Nelson and Terry Kelly, 1979 (photo courtesy of Mike Nelson).

A Week in Washington for a Student Scientist

Photo: Haven Cashwell in front of the U.S. Capitol Building

Guest post by Haven Cashwell, PhD Student and Graduate Research Assistant at Auburn University

From my small hometown of Marshallberg in eastern North Carolina, and even my current home as a researcher and PhD student at Auburn University, the chambers of Congress have always felt like a different world. I had never even visited Washington, D.C., before, so truly I did not know what the policy world looked like. The recent AMS Summer Policy Colloquium opened these doors to me and showed that the pathway between research and policy isn’t as distant as I once thought.

The integration of science and policy has always intrigued me—such as policy for coastal resiliency, since my hometown of Marshallberg, NC is being impacted by climatic changes—but I was not aware of how that process worked. As I finish my PhD, I’m also exploring possible career paths that I could take after graduating. One aspect of my current research involves assessing and communicating climate and health risk factors with frontline communities in the Carolinas, which has made connections with the policy process feel even more pressing.

My mentor for an internship this summer is Dr. Kathie Dello, North Carolina’s state climatologist, who previously attended the colloquium and encouraged me to participate as well. After a week at the Colloquium, I left with lots of new knowledge and a much greater appreciation of how the policymaking process works.

For instance, I learned about the concepts of science for policy and policy for science, and how to navigate the two. Given my background in science communication, the idea of translating scientific evidence and research results to be usable and actionable (science for policy) felt very familiar, but I gained a new understanding of how policy affects funding that goes to different agencies for scientific research (policy for science). 

The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort walking to Capitol Hill

Together with several dozen fellow scientists, I heard from professionals working in the policy world. They represented careers ranging from those having to do with the federal budget process to congressional staffers working directly with members of congress on science initiatives. I had no idea the options were so broad and varied. And far from the common perception that policy has to be dull, these speakers had great passion for their own work and a clear enthusiasm for sharing that with my peers and me.

We put our knowledge into practice in a legislative exercise that was sprinkled throughout the week. Participants were separated into groups and assigned to play the role of a senator marking up certain legislation. The goal was to get an understanding of how politics, policy, and procedure interact in the legislative process by creating amendments to bills and working together to create a significant piece of legislation. Much enthusiasm was shared among the participants at the end of the week when “voting” for the legislation, as the hard work throughout the entire week was put into practice. 

I left the Colloquium not only with a much better understanding of how science and policy can connect, but also with a new cohort with whom I networked throughout the week. Whether our careers keep us in the sciences or shift toward the world of policy, I’m excited for our paths to cross in the future and see how our experiences from this week in Washington shape our own work.

I would recommend attending the Summer Policy Colloquium to any young scientist who is interested in the policy process. By being better informed about how science and policy intersect, I’m now able to consider how my own research could fit in, whether it’s sharing how results from my research could influence policy or how to communicate and collaborate with policymakers in general.  

The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort

Whether my future takes me back to small towns facing climate risks, leading research universities, or even a career in the policy sector, I know that the Summer Policy Colloquium has given me the tools and knowledge to be a more well-rounded researcher capable of connecting with the world of policy.

About the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium

The AMS Summer Policy Colloquium provides an overview of policy basics and decision-making in the earth and atmospheric sciences, along with opportunities to meet and dialogue with federal officials, Congressional staffers, and other decision-makers. Aimed at early and mid-level federal managers, scientists, private-sector executives, university faculty, and selected graduate students and fellows, the Colloquium helps participants build skills and contacts, gauge interest in science policy and program leadership, and explore selected issues in depth.

In the Field: Understanding Canyon Fires

A Research Spotlight from the 14th Annual Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium, 2–4 May, 2023

The California Canyon Fire controlled burn moves upslope. Image: San José State University

Wildfires in complex terrain like canyons are known to be particularly dangerous. Canyon fires often “blow up” or “erupt,” exploding suddenly with intense heat and spreading rapidly—and too often causing fatalities among firefighters. In the ninth session of the 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium on 4 May, Maritza Arreola Amaya presented initial results from the California Canyon Fire experiment, a controlled burn that was intensively documented to help better understand the behavior of canyon fires.

In this experiment, conducted in Central California’s Gabilan Range, a fire was ignited and monitored by a large team who placed sensors around the fire site and monitored the blaze from the ground, from the air with balloons, drones and helicopters; from meteorological towers; and with vehicle-mounted instruments including Radar, LiDAR (“light detection and ranging,” which uses laser light pulses to build three-dimensional images), and SoDAR (“sonic detection and ranging,” which uses sound waves to measure wind speed at different heights). The fire was lit near the bottom of the canyon in steep terrain of chaparral and sparse oak trees. It moved quickly up the canyon, the first time a fire of this size has naturally done so while under intense monitoring.

Flame attachment and v-shaped spread of the California Canyon Fire controlled burn. Image: CAL FIRE

The fire spread up the walls of the canyon in a “v” shape. It clearly exhibited eruptive behavior including flame attachment—in which hot gases rising from the fire downslope heat the unburned fuel further up the slope, leading to an intense, quickly spreading fire front. A highly turbulent, rotating plume of smoke emerged, and air was rapidly entrained into the fire, where temperatures reached nearly 800 degrees Centigrade (1472 Fahrenheit).

While some instruments were destroyed by the flames, researchers at San Jose State, the NSF-UICRC Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research Center, and more are eagerly analyzing the data collected to help improve understanding and modeling of dangerous canyon fires.

“Working on this one-of-a-kind canyon project was one of the coolest things I’ve ever done. Seeing the experiment that took so long to organize and set up finally come to life was amazing. It involved countless hours setting up complicated instrumentation so that ultimately the behavior of a wildfire on canyon terrain could be analyzed for the first time naturally moving up a large canyon. I know that this successful experiment will play a big part in future investigations involving wildfires on complex terrain and the danger they bring to firefighters.”

Maritza Arreola Amaya

Meeting registrants can view the recording of this session here. Recordings become publicly available three months after the meeting.

For a real-life example of a fatal canyon fire and the weather conditions that worsened it, see our post about the Yarnell Hill Fire.


About 14Fire

Meteorology and wildfires are intimately interconnected—and wildfires are becoming increasingly severe and frequent in many parts of the United States. From local residents and firefighters on the ground to planners and insurers, to people hundreds of miles away breathing wind-driven smoke, society relies on our ever-improving ability to understand and forecast the atmospheric conditions relating to wildfire. The American Meteorological Society’s 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium brought together researchers and fire managers to discuss the latest science.

The U.S. Budget in 5 Minutes: A Primer for Scientists

The U.S. Capitol Building on a banknote

By Katie Pflaumer, AMS Marketing Communications Manager, and Paul Higgins, AMS Associate Executive Director for Policy

The federal budget is the cornerstone for much of the scientific funding in the United States. Directly or indirectly, federal funding impacts the work of almost all AMS members and those in related fields. But do you know how it works? Even if you’re not attending the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium this coming week, you can still get a sense of budget basics with this quick guide from the AMS Policy Program.

Science, Policy, and the Budget

Scientific insights can influence policy and help improve it—this is one major way that science matters to society, whether we’re determining how to manage reservoirs or what we are going to do about climate change. But however you slice it, the decisions made by policymakers and politicians also affect how we practice science. Perhaps the most prominent way is through funding for research—determining what gets funded, and how much.

For our purposes, the two key components of the U.S. federal budget are revenue (taxes and fees taken in by the federal government) and spending.

  • Mandatory spending is required by existing public law or statute. Nearly two-thirds of government spending comes from existing laws—such as those that fund Social Security and Medicare along with payments on the nation’s debt.
  • Discretionary spending has to be funded each year or at other regular intervals through an act of Congress. Many government agencies (including scientific ones) rely on discretionary spending.

The annual budget process is how the U.S. Government determines its discretionary spending. The budget is a highly political document. It is one of the places where big philosophical questions play out about who should pay for what, the size and role of the federal government, and different approaches to debts, deficits, and surpluses. Increased spending in any one area requires more taxes, taking funding away from something else, or deficit spending (and adding on debt). Decreased spending requires difficult decisions about what programs or benefits get cut.

The Budget Process: Resolutions, Reconciliation, and Appropriations, Oh My!

The U.S. government runs on a fiscal year that starts on October 1 of the previous calendar year (so FY 2024 begins October 1, 2023). Our current budget framework is outlined in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The U.S. House and Senate together hold the purse strings for the federal budget, but the executive branch has the first go at things. Here’s how the process works in a “typical” year.

The president develops a detailed budget request. This request is managed by the Office of Management and Budget and developed in concert with federal agencies, and is due to Congress on the first Monday in February prior to the start of the next fiscal year.

The Senate and the House of Representatives develop a joint congressional budget resolution that specifies overall tax and spending levels, providing a top-line budget number. The budget resolution can also include “reconciliation”—legislation that can address revenue or spending issues affecting the overall budget, including in ways that significantly change existing laws.

The House and Senate vote on the budget resolution. Note: Both the budget resolution and any reconciliation measures need only a simple majority vote in the Senate and aren’t subject to the vote-stalling technique known as a filibuster (which requires 60 votes to break). Reconciliation measures are sometimes used to pass controversial legislation that wouldn’t receive 60 Senate votes—including the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes for the Affordable Care Act, and the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

The budget resolution, once passed in both the House and the Senate, establishes overall discretionary funding for the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; this is known as a 302(a) allocation. The main function of the Appropriations committees is to provide discretionary funding to government operations including federal agencies.

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees each parcel the funding out to twelve Appropriations subcommittees (each of which receives a 302(b) allocation). The House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees develop more detailed spending plans based on the allocations received.

Each of the subcommittees can pass a separate funding bill, but they are often passed as a single “omnibus” bill covering some or all of the 12 appropriations. The House and Senate must come to agreement on and pass identical versions of these funding bills. Unlike the original budget resolution, this requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate to avoid a filibuster. Any provisions in the bill(s) that would exceed the allotted budget are also subject to filibuster.

The House and Senate must pass the budget bill(s) and get them signed by the president (or override the president’s veto) by the time the fiscal year begins.


Subcommittees Funding Science

Several appropriations subcommittees deal with science-related agencies (for example, the defense budget funds a lot of science research). However, the three subcommittees that have the greatest science focus are likely Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (budgets for NOAA, NASA, the NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, among others), Energy and Water Development (which includes the Department of Energy and its Office of Science), and Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (which includes both USGS and EPA).

That’s the idea—in practice, it’s often a lot more complicated. For example, when FY 2014 started without an agreed-upon budget, the government shut down for 16 days. In mid-October, Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to allow the government to reopen using the previous year’s budget levels. The final omnibus budget wasn’t signed until January 2014, more than three months into the fiscal year.

As you can see, the politics of funding the U.S. government makes for a major challenge, requiring a lot of work, diplomacy, and give-and-take—far more than we can get into in a blog post. If you’d like to explore the topic further, a more thorough rundown on the budget is available in this AMS webinar recording: “The U.S. Federal Budget and Policy Process.” And don’t forget to follow the AMS Policy Program for more ways you can learn about—or get involved in—the policy process!

Helpful Resources


About the AMS Policy Program

The Policy Program promotes understanding and use of science and services relating to weather, water, and climate. Our goal is to help the nation, and the world, avoid risks and realize opportunities associated with the Earth system.

The Yarnell Hill Fire: Microbursts, Density Currents, and 19 Lost Lives

A Research Spotlight from the 14th Annual Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium, 2–4 May, 2023

The Yarnell Hill Fire the day it began, June 28, 2013. Image credit: USDA

Arizona’s Yarnell Hill Fire ranks among the U.S. wildfires with the most firefighter fatalities. On June 30, 2013, members of the interagency Granite Mountain Hotshots were entrapped in a canyon by fire due to rapidly shifting wind conditions. Many attempted to take shelter but were overwhelmed. Nineteen firefighters died and the fire, fed by the strong winds, blazed out of control. The tragedy and damage devastated the community of Yarnell, Arizona.

A joint team at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and North Carolina A&T State University has been using simulations to help understand exactly what happened. A recent presentation by Michael Kaplan et al. May 2, 2023 in the first session of the 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium broke down the events at the meso-γ (2–20 km) scale leading up to the tragedy, the latest in a series of analyses starting at large scales and moving towards ever-finer resolution. They found that a density current (a flow of denser air that intrudes underneath less-dense air) and its secondary circulations drove the winds that forced fire into the canyon where the Granite Mountain Hotshots were located.

Firefighters near the Yarnell Hill Fire on June 28, 2013. Image credit: USDA

A squall line that developed over the Colorado Plateau on the morning of the 30th moved southwestward rapidly, strengthening over the Black Hills and Bradshaw Mountains on the way, until it died out further to the southwest over the Weaver Mountains near Yarnell. From this dying squall line developed a density current that produced unusual air circulation patterns in combination with the area’s complex terrain. Simulations by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model suggest that the fading density current created conditions in the Weaver Mountains that were highly conducive to downward air motion. This resulted in a series of strong localized downdrafts similar to microbursts near the fire site.

Earlier in the day, the fire had been moving towards the northeast, driven by southwesterly winds. Within 1–2 hours in the late afternoon, the winds shifted and intensified rapidly, becoming northwesterly, then northeasterly, blowing at 45 miles per hour and driving the fire (now blazing at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit), in a southwesterly direction. Kaplan called these shifts “dramatic, remarkable changes.”

Wind direction and speed (blue arrows) and direction of Yarnell Hill fire motion (red lines) at 3:30–4:30 p.m. and 4:30–5:30 p.m. local time on June 30, 2013. Image: State of Arizona Serious Accident Investigation Team

In the end, “The entrapment of the Granite Mountain Hotshots was likely the result of very, very intense redirected winds” that continued over a longer than expected period, Kaplan said. “Even after they got the initial surge of northeasterly flow [due to the density current] the Hotshots had to deal with more surges of high momentum” from the series of microbursts. He noted that despite the Granite Mountain Hotshots’ high level of experience, “This is something firefighters may not have really been [expecting] to occur.”

Vertical cross-section of potential temperature and isotachs from 3:15 to 3:35 p.m. Arizona time on June 30, 2013, showing new cells forming behind the density current near Yarnell, associated with microburst downdrafts. Image courtesy of Michael Kaplan

Kaplan’s team will continue to work on their simulations of conditions associated with the Yarnell Hill Fire, with the hope of providing information that can help prevent similar entrapments, and deaths, in the future.

Meeting registrants can view the recording of this session here. Recordings become publicly available three months after the meeting.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About 14Fire
Meteorology and wildfires are intimately interconnected—and wildfires are becoming increasingly severe and frequent in many parts of the United States. From local residents and firefighters on the ground to planners and insurers, to people hundreds of miles away breathing wind-driven smoke, society relies on our ever-improving ability to understand and forecast the atmospheric conditions relating to wildfire. The American Meteorological Society’s 14th Fire and Forest Meteorology Symposium brought together researchers and fire managers to discuss the latest science.