AMS Policy Colloquium: Where Science, Policy, and Communication Collide

by Jen Henderson, Skywarn storm spotter, writer, and grad student at Virginia Tech in Science and Technology Studies. Republished from her blog at JenHenderson.com
This week, I’d like to have a little chat with my friends and colleagues who are connected to the world of atmospheric and meteorological sciences: Faculty members, industry professionals, employees of NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS). And yes, this includes my fellow graduate students in these fields, as well.
Here’s a little story:
Last week, as I sat in front of a computer at a local NWS office, balloonI found myself mesmerized by the most simple of objects: a weather balloon.
In the photograph in front of me, a meteorologist stood dressed in a warm jacket, jeans, and hat gripping a thin cotton string topped by a whitish orb. It hovered like a small sun over his left shoulder. I recalled the time I watched a weather balloon launch a few months ago, how carefully the meteorologist measured the helium that inflated the balloon, which before it filled with air sat on the table like a large loaf of bread dough. I helped him inspect it for defects before following him out into the dusk of an early autumn evening where he released it into the cloudy sky above. He would later tell me that launching the balloon, and the small brick-like rawinsonde that dangled below on its journey into the upper atmosphere, was still one of the most reliable means for collecting data important to weather forecasting.
My question that day was how to get members of different publics as excited about weather as I then felt. What kind of research were meteorologists able to do based on this weather balloon launch, or sounding? What did the launch reveal about trends in weather?  Where might people like me, a graduate student in a discipline outside the sciences, learn more?

  • What I really want to know was this: How might meteorologists and atmospheric scientists more successfully communicate what they do to those of us who are not familiar with their work? How might they channel the passion they have for what they do into stories that inspire the rest of us?

Communicating sciences to various publics has been on my mind for several years, but it was brought home to me last summer when I attended the American Meteorological Society’s annual Policy Colloquium in Washington, D.C. I was one of a few social scientists to mingle with and learn from various atmospheric and meteorological scientists, ranging in experience from graduate school students to tenured professors and industry professionals. While the colloquium centered on introducing attendees to several aspects of the policy world, which is rich in opportunities and complexity, the underlying theme, you might say, focused on encouraging scientists to think about their potential role in communicating what they do to different publics–policy makers, elected officials, students, and members of the general public.
As I listened to seasoned speakers from all walks of life, I gained a few unexpected insights into science policy and scientists themselves.

  1. Many scientists harbor the assumption that they’re not good at communicating their work. Not true! I heard many of my scientist colleagues refer to themselves as bad communicators, introverts, and pointy-headed thinkers. They insisted they didn’t know how to communicate (although they did have an inkling about how important it is that they do so). What I experienced instead was the opposite. Most of the participants were excellent story tellers and more than adequate communicators, they just hadn’t thought about the intersection of their narrative and research skills. With a little practice (and a lot of critique), many left the colloquium more confident about their ability to explain not only their work but why it might be important to different audiences.
  2. Science affects policy and policy affects science. In fact, I would suggest that the two are intertwined in ways that make it difficult to distinguish them at times. Issues surrounding funding, regulation, and accountability shape the types of science we do and the ways in which it gets done. And then of course the types of science performed across the country affect and influence policy.  See how they’re intertwined? There is no pure science nor is there pure policy. As they say in my discipline, Science and Technology Studies, they are co-constructed.
    AMS-group-1-300x225
    AMS policy group at Mount Vernon.
  3. There are multiple ways to participate in communicating sciences to your chosen public. With the help of communications staff members from The American Geophysical Union (AGU), we practiced distilling lengthy research agendas into a few sentences that could resonate with a listener. AGU staff encouraged us to think about the story of our research, the narrative hook that would capture someone’s interest; to practice talking about our research with school children, members of the media, even through socia media sites; and to consider building a relationship with our local government officials, many of whom have little scientific background but must make decisions involving scientific information. (For a concise way of thinking about how scientists can act in multiple ways, read The Honest Broker, by Roger Pielke, Jr., or check out his awesome blog.)*

So what’s my overall message?
You, my friends, have the opportunity to join an amazing group of people at the American Meteorological Society who believe that the passion each of you feel about your work can be productively channeled into the science policy world…and beyond. The same elements of the universe that inspire you to pursue your research can inspire others. Your experience can give you a voice in shaping the multiple conversations among members of the public, policy makers, industry professionals, local government officials, and your fellow colleagues.
I wish I could attend again. The colloquium opened up opportunities and allowed me to make connections I wouldn’t have had otherwise. It helped me understand the challenges of the political world and how these issues shape my own work.  And it was so much fun!
The AMS Policy Colloquium is now accepting applications for the next cohort who will meet in DC for nine days this June. But hurry, the deadline is March 31. If you’re a student or faculty member and you’re accepted, you can apply for NSF funding. So what have you got to lose?
*To read more about science policy, the AMS colloquium, and how these two things have shaped my work and my colleagues’ work, please check out our article in the February 19, 2013 issue of Eos, the AGU’s weekly newspaper. Goldner, Henderson, and Shieh.

AMS eBooks: No Longer Just Icing on the Cake

One of the growing traditions at the AMS Annual Meeting has been the cake cutting celebration of new books published by the Society. This year’s meeting was no exception—the ceremony touted a particularly yummy year of reading provided by AMS Books sweetened by a brand-new venture into electronic reading.
Indeed, the icing on the cake—literally—was the enhancement of the program’s eBook distribution. Written into the frosting was the impending collaboration between Springer and AMS to enable electronic distribution of dozens of books and monographs.
If you weren’t fortunate enough to get a slice back in January, hunger no longer: today, you can have your cake and eat it, too, because the Springer-AMS website is now officially open.
Springer’s Senior Publishing Editor in Earth Science and Geography, Robert Doe, says, “The AMS book program is internationally renowned, and many of their titles are classed as seminal. I am delighted that these quality books will now be available electronically for the very first time.”
The 12 titles available as eBooks immediately will grow to approximately 50 in 2013, and 3 to 5 of AMS’s selection of new releases will be added each year. The current collection includes key works on climate change and meteorological hazards including Lewis and Clark: Weather and Climate Data from the Expedition Journals and Deadly Season: Analysis of the 2011 Tornado Outbreaks aswell as instructional texts like Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist.  Over time, the eBooks list will be expanded with out-of-print legacy titles that will also be available through print-on-demand.
The collaboration with the world’s largest collection of science, technology, and mathematics eBooks–enables AMS to benefit from Springer’s innovative ePublishing technologies, long-term library relationships, and reach into global institutional markets. According to AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter, “The American Meteorological Society is committed to achieving the broadest possible dissemination of the important science published in our books. This agreement with Springer opens new avenues for that dissemination and therefore represents an important means to achieve our goals.”
“Our arrangement enhances both discoverability and access to our content, but puts Springer in the driver’s seat in terms of remaining on top of technology—file formats and devices that tend to change as often as each year,” says AMS Books Managing Editor Sarah Jane Shangraw.
For individuals, AMS eBooks will be available for purchase not only from Springer but also eBooks.com, Google Books, and other eBook retailers in files downloadable to any device. People at institutions that subscribe to SpringerLink will be able to view web-based books using their institutional login.  The SpringerLink “Springer Book Archive” will make available books published prior to 2005.
AMS will continue to distribute print books directly and through its print distribution partner, the University of Chicago Press.

At the AMS Annual Meeting Springer Senior Publishing Editor Robert Doe with the knife-wielding AMS Publications Director Ken Heideman and AMS Books Managing Editor Sarah Jane Shangraw cut a deal--and a cake--that's best consumed on your favorite eReader.
At the AMS Annual Meeting Springer Senior Publishing Editor Robert Doe with the knife-wielding AMS Publications Director Ken Heideman and AMS Books Managing Editor Sarah Jane Shangraw cut a deal–and a cake–that’s best consumed on your favorite eReader.

 

New NSTA Executive Director Talks Climate Education

Last month, AMS member David L. Evans began as the new executive director of The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the largest professional organization promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning.
Evans—former director of the Center for Sustainability: Earth, Energy, and Climate at Noblis, Inc.—has served the science profession in many different capacities throughout his career. Along with serving as undersecretary for science at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., he was assistant administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, deputy assistant administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, senior scientist and deputy administrator at the National Ocean Service, and program manager at the Office of Naval Research. Evans was also a tenured professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island and was a classroom teacher in Media, Pennsylvania.
The Front Page asked Evans about his plans as executive director.
As the new executive director of NSTA, what are your plans for promoting education about climate and weather?
The National Science Teachers Association is a partner in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and will be working to encourage their adoption and assisting with implementation. One of the design constructs of the NGSS has been to reduce the breadth of topics covered in favor of greater depth. Weather and climate are among the disciplinary core ideas in the standards, which are important at all grade levels. In addition to their presence as “topics,” weather and climate provide ideal areas to explore science and engineering practices and cross cutting concepts like model development.
How did teaching prepare you for a career in science (and/or science prepare you for teaching?)
For me, teaching and science have always been intimately linked. Being a scientist has always inspired me to share what I know, whether in a journal article or in the classroom. Teaching is where it all begins, where we can ignite a spark in students to want to learn more about science. Discovering something new about the world we live in and discussing and sharing the information with others is all part of the scientific process of evidence-based reasoning and communication.
How do you feel your background in general will aid in facilitating the goals of the NSTA?
My background includes teaching at both high school and university levels, conducting and managing scientific research, and leading large scientific and educational organizations. At NOAA, I worked to enhance the education programs in the National Marine Sanctuaries, the National Sea Grant College Program, and NOAA Cooperative Institutes. At the Smithsonian, I worked to develop the National Science Resource Center and to emphasize the importance of the public understanding of science in the museums and zoo. My executive skills coupled with my management expertise will be helpful in leading the NSTA and navigating the association’s future. My program and administrative experiences will be helpful in managing the NSTA.
Are there plans for any new programs/innovations in the NSTA?
It is really too soon to talk about new programs in detail. However, STEM education is on the national agenda and there seems to be broad agreement on its importance. NSTA’s mission is to promote excellence in science teaching and learning for all and that is not confined to doing everything the same way that it has always been tried. We have learned quite a lot about how people learn and we have mature and evolving technologies that make “information” available everywhere, all of the time. NSTA will be a part of the changing landscape of professional development for teachers and new learning methodologies for students.

AMS Lowers Dues for Members in Developing Countries

The AMS Council recently approved a reduction in the cost of membership for those living in countries with developing economies. AMS President J. Marshall Shepherd announced the change in this message:

As the new American Meteorological Society (AMS) President for 2013, I am pleased to inform you of a recent change to the AMS dues structure that directly impacts those living in resource-restricted areas.  Effective immediately, scientists and other professionals residing in countries with developing economies (CDE) are entitled to AMS membership for just $20, a fraction of the regular member cost. 
The current list of eligible countries as approved by the AMS Council may be located on the AMS Web site at http://www.ametsoc.org/MEMB/countrydeveconomylist.html
I urge you to take advantage of this opportunity to enhance your networking and professional development.  AMS CDE membership runs on a calendar year basis (January-December) and includes a subscription to Digital BAMS (www.ametsoc.org/digitalbams/), published monthly.  Journal subscriptions are optional and may be purchased at the discounted member rate.  Additional benefits specific only to members include:

  • Full access to Digital BAMS, the online version of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), the official publication of the AMS
  • Subscription to AMS News You Can Use, a weekly electronic newsletter that highlights topics in meteorology and related sciences from sources around the world
  • Society journals at greatly reduced subscription rates and deep discounts on new and classic titles in the collection of AMS Books
  • Discounted registration fees for AMS annual and specialty meetings and continuing education programs
  • Special Member privileges on our AMS Online Career Center
  • Full voting privileges

An application for CDE membership may be downloaded from http://www.ametsoc.org/MEMB/apps/2013apps/cde_app.pdf and returned to AMS by fax or mail.  Please refer to the application form itself for specific instructions. If you have any questions regarding AMS membership or the application process, our Member Services department is available by email at [email protected] or by phone at 617-227-2425 to assist you.
Join AMS and be part of a diverse and dynamic national and international scientific network that’s 14,000 members strong.  I encourage you to fully immerse yourself into the Society, and where possible, engage in the numerous opportunities to contribute, such as volunteering for committee service or nominating fellow colleagues for awards.  Help shape the future of our profession by becoming a member today.
Sincerely,

Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd
President, American Meteorological Society

A Simple Investment in the Sciences

It’s not every day you get a chance to invest in a sure-fire start-up based on science you know very well. Even rarer is a start-up that is the brainchild of a group of determined middle school students. And when was the last time you could make that investment, for free, with just a click on the internet?
Vicky Gorman, a science teacher in Memorial Middle School in Medford, New Jersey, is currently taking the AMS’s DataStreme Atmosphere distance learning course. The students, and the start-up venture, are hers, so we’ll let Vicky explain it as she did to AMS President Marshall Shepherd this week:

Two of my 7th grade students approached me last fall about submitting an idea for the $5000 Beneficial Foundation School Challenge. These two young ladies brought many ideas and wonderful enthusiasm to the table. We decided on a “Citizen Science Education Program” to bring science into the lives of the citizens of our community, and allow students to apply their science knowledge to the real world. I am developing this program with my students now as my final project for the DatasStreme course. The focus of the program is Earth Science, which as you know, needs a greater presence in both child and adult education in the 21st century. I can see this project making a difference in our community, county, state, and beyond.
Fast forward a few months to January of this year. We were selected as a top ten finalist! However, now, we need your help. We have posted a video to the Beneficial Challenge web site, as have the other nine schools. Click there and you will see that this final phase of the competition will be decided by number of votes for our video.Voting opened on Monday, and closes at midnight on next Monday, 11 March. You may vote every day and multiple times every day.

Here’s what you’re looking for when you click on the links above:
de417321-f855-44f8-a768-b27e3f418545
Let’s take this opportunity to start up something new, and invest in the future of earth sciences.

Vision Prize: Polling Experts about Climate–and Each Other

If you can’t get enough of prediction by forecasting weather or climate–or basketball tournament brackets, elections, and the Oscars—here’s the game for you: Try the web-based opinion poll of climate and earth scientists—the Vision Prize.
A nonpartisan research project using the Web for incentivized polling, the Vision Prize is testing a new way to get scientists to speak candidly to the public about climate change, without media filtering.
“We all recognize the need to do science communication, but we still seem to struggle to do this well,” says Jonathan Foley, Director of the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment. “As a new approach to this problem, Vision Prize deserves our attention.”
Foley’s institute is collaborating with Carnegie Mellon University to try out this poll-based experimental method. The advisors include behavioral psychologists, economists, and public policy scholars, so participating scientists may feel a bit like the tables have been turned, with humans becoming the lab rats on the treadmills.
Don’t let that stop you, however. Participants are having fun at it, getting serious results, learning about their colleagues, and yes—there’s that “incentivized” part—they’re winning prizes, too. Participants not only make gut-check projections about future climate but also predict what their colleagues think—a way for the rest of us to gauge their confidence and consensus.
Surprisingly, so far the results show that experts systematically underestimate the consensus amongst their peers. For example:
VisionPrizeConverge
(“Expected Answers” are predictions of what the most likely answers were; “Actual Answers” are predictions of climate made by those surveyed.) The participants who best predict their colleagues’ opinions win gift cards towards the charity of their choice. All in all, scientists should feel right at home doing public service to win a chance to do even more public service.
Poll results are annotated by a measure of the stature of the participants within the climate science community. The web site provides h-index scores that factor both how many papers participants have published and how often those papers are cited. In a press release today, Vision Prize noted that the polls have been taken by some impressive participants.

“We’re very encouraged by the high quality of our 275+ expert participants,” says Peter Kriss, the director of research. Vision Prize provides mean h-index scores to give readers of the poll an approximate metric for assessing the relative expertise of the participants who selected a given answer. “We were very impressed to find mean h = 36 among our top 50 experts,” says Kriss. As a point of reference, h ≈ 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure at major research universities; membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences may typically be associated with h ≈ 45 and higher (Hirsch, PNAS, 2005).

The mean for all participants so far is h=13, but that may change soon.Vision Prize is now actively seeking additional participants from the scientific community, including doctoral students. “The larger the number of climate and earth scientists participating, the more useful the results,” says Vision Prize Managing Director Mark Kriss.
Vision Prize makes its results open to the public, so it’s certainly imaginable that not only are policy makers and pundits paying attention but also some prediction obsessed spectators who themselves are predicting how the polls turn out. The web site is currently polling about a round of topics that began in September 2012 and will wrap up at midnight, April 30th.
If you qualify, by all means get into the game as a participant as soon as possible. Answering the survey questions takes about five minutes, after quick registration. Mark Kriss, Vision Prize managing director, says, “Early voting helps boost participation rates so your post would be timely now. The larger the number of participating scientists, the more useful the results.”
By the way, even if you don’t end up participating, the Vision Prize is also open to suggestions about questions to ask the experts.

The Short and Long of Sequestration Forecasts

By now your head is probably spinning with all the conflicting forecasts what the Federal sequestration will do to us. (For a sample, try the Washington Post’s compilation of various projections.) If the collective disagreement of pundits indicates a kind of chaos–a bit like making a weather forecast when the numerical models just will never converge, an ensemble gone haywire–then you’re right. The reason for the confusion, says AMS Policy Program Director William Hooke, is that nobody knows what will happen. Here’s how he put it, in an interview with The Weather Channel’s Maria LaRosa on yesterday’s Morning Rush show:

TWC: What should we expect in particular for weather agencies? What is your top concern right now?
My top concern is the same as the weather top concern. The uncertainty in all this. We make good weather forecasts because we have practice. The case of the sequestration is something different. It’s unprecedented. We don’t know what will happen. That includes the policy makers at the top and the bench forecasters at the bottom.
TWC It may be a couple weeks before we some of the direct impacts? How are you folks preparing, or can you?
Hooke: You know, an NGO like the American Meteorological Society can’t do much but watch with horrified fascination. The real issue is what happens to those scientists and technicians who try to keep the radars prepared and keep staff online when bad weather occurs with little notice, and just be ready to protect property and to protect the American public.
TWC And the AMS gives out grants for all kinds of things, and how does that impact money that you guys give out?
Hooke: We’ll certainly be getting less and so we’ll be less capable in turn. We, like many private sector firms and academic researchers, depend a great deal on NOAA, the National Weather Service, and other federal agencies to keep things humming, particularly innovation, particularly improvements in forecasts and services.

However, as we know from weather forecasting, the short term may be overwhelmed by chaos and uncertainty, but that doesn’t mean seasonal or climate projections can’t have some teeth in them.  City College of New York physics professor Michael Lubell, who is also director of public relations for the American Physical Society, told Ira Flatow yesterday on National Public Radio’s Science Friday that the short term uncertainty is itself a determinant for the long term prospects of science:

One of the difficulties we have in science is that it’s not like a road project. You say, “well, we don’t have enough money to continue paving something today, we’ll call the crew off and bring them back six months or nine months from now.” Science—you cut it and the people aren’t coming back, facilities aren’t going to be opened again….
I think of this as taking a frog or taking a goose in a pot of water and we’re slowly heating it up, and eventually the goose gets cooked and by the time it gets cooked it’s too late to deal with it. That’s what’s going to happen to us.  Unfortunately the public doesn’t see it immediately, and I think the President probably made a mistake by trying to scare people, because you’re not going to see it at least for several months, if not then. It’s just going to be a slow erosion, and the case with science, as I said, is that erosion is not some you see easily.
I would argue…that the more devastating effects are the long-term effects. If you have a longer line at the airport today, put money back in and those lines will get shorter. If we remove our money from the investment—and let me just make a couple comments about this. I mean half of the economic growth since World War II was attributable to science and technology. One fact that people usually don’t know is that laser enabled technology accounts for one-third of our economy today, and they began with a small amount of government money more than 50 years ago.
[With cuts] the programs shut down forever. When people are smart, they find other things to do.

Hurricane Sandy: NHC Final Report and AMS Town Hall Presentations Online

The National Hurricane Center released its post-storm report on Hurricane Sandy this week, confirming the many nuances of the late-season monster storm we already knew. Yet it’s the details, provided by scientists attuned to getting the minutiae right, that make the report an inviting read.
For starters, the NHC report confirms that Sandy wasn’t a hurricane at landfall. Its core convection collapsed as the center of the storm moved west of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream—the same warm waters that earlier on the day of landfall (October 29, 2012) cranked up Sandy’s winds to 100 mph as the center closed in on New Jersey. Cold air wrapping into Sandy’s center contributed to the collapsing convection, and this structural change transitioned Sandy from tropical to extratropical just 50 miles offshore of Atlantic City.

Sandy Inundation Map
Estimated inundation in feet above ground level in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut from Sandy. (Source: NHC Tropical Cyclone Report—Hurricane Sandy)

 
Post analysis of the storm’s intensity in the Caribbean also explains why NHC has now upgraded Sandy to a Category 3 “major” hurricane with 115 mph winds from Category 2, which at the time had been considered the peak classification prior to landfall in southeastern Cuba. The destruction wrought there, described as “especially severe,” included more than a quarter-million homes damaged and 17,000 sheared to pieces by the extreme winds. Gusts topped 110 mph before disabling the anemometer in Santiago de Cuba, the island nation’s second-largest city, and reached an incredible 165 mph at Gran Piedra (“Big Rock,” elev. 2,000 feet) in the national park east of the city. Sandy killed 11 people in Cuba, an unusually high number in a nation that has weathered numerous ferocious hurricanes with lesser loss of life. It was a testament to Sandy’s fury.
Additionally, the report describes changes proposed to NHC’s watch/warning criteria. If adopted, they will address limitations to the use of tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings when tropical cycl0nes transition to extratropical (i.e., non-tropical or “post tropical”) storms. Facing the potential for Hurricane Sandy to make such a transition prior to striking the Northeast, NHC opted not to issue hurricane watches and warnings north of North Carolina because the transition would force NHC to discontinue them even though the threat for severe wind and tidal conditions remained, which “would cause an unacceptable level of confusion and disruption during critical periods of preparation that included evacuations.” The decision was widely criticized and cited as contributing to the large number of deaths due to storm surge flooding and falling trees in and around New York City.
The report has much more, including details about the record storm tides in New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut, flooding rain in the mid-Atlantic states, and snow in the Appalachians, as well as a breakdown of U.S. deaths and an abundance of observations.
Town Hall Meeting on Sandy
Recordings of the the presentations made at the AMS Town Hall Meeting on Hurricane Sandy at the Annual Meeting in Austin are now available.
Hurricane Sandy Introduction
Tanja Fransen, NOAA/NWS, Glasgow, Montana
Introduction to Sandy and the Major Impacts
Louis W. Uccellini, NOAA/NWS/NCEP, Camp Springs, Maryland
Hurricane Sandy: Hurricane Wind and Storms Surge Impacts
Richard D. Knabb, NOAA/NWS/NHC, Miami, Florida
Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy: Rain, Snow and Inland Wind Impacts
David Novak, NOAA/NWS/Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, College Park, Maryland
A Research-Community Perspective of the Life Cycle of Hurricane Sandy
Melvyn A. Shapiro, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado
Communicating the Threat to the Public through Broadcast Media
Bryan Norcross, The Weather Channel, Atlanta, Georgia
Following the Storm through Social Media
Jason Samenow, Washington Post, Washington, D.C.; and Andrew Freedman, Climate Central, New York, N.Y.
Storm Response in New York and New Jersey
Eric Holthaus, The Wall Street Journal, New York, N.Y.
 

State of the Union Address Sets Stage for Senate Climate Hearing Today

If, last night, you made it through the usual State of the Union appeals to bipartisanship, tax reform, health care, job creation, deficit control, and industrial revitalization–then you heard President Obama’s unusually blunt promise to take action on climate change.
And all you had to do was wait through the rest of the night before Congress started working on its response. The Senate Committee on Environment and Infrastructure, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer, has already lined up a session on the “Latest Climate Science” for this morning, at 10 a.m. EST. The blue-ribbon panel of invited experts providing testimony includes AMS President J. Marshall Shepherd and you can follow the live webcast of the hearing at the committee’s website.
The hearing originally looked like a relatively routine overview of science following the release of the newly drafted National Climate Assessment, but now it is charged by the President’s new resolve to begin dealing with climate change, with or without Congressional input. His position was staked out in a few sentences hunkered down amidst a flurry of points about energy efficiency and independence:

[O]ver the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.
Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.
Now, the good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.
If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct..I will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

The threat of unilateral Executive action set off a storm of commentary (e.g., Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2) and is sure to put the Senate in a very different frame of mind for today’s hearing. As for the science of climate change and its impacts–the focus of the hearing–this morning’s line-up of guests undoubtedly will have plenty to say about the latest findings. For example, Prof. Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois, and Dr. John Balbus, of the National Institutes of Health, are among the lead authors of the 2013 National Climate Assessment (available for comment). Meanwhile, Dr. Shepherd has been speaking out frequently on both the impacts of climate change on society and on the scientific approach to evaluating the effects of climate change on extreme events, and of course he is part of the AMS Executive Council that updated the Society’s information statement on climate change in 2012.

25,000 Euros for Your Thoughts: The Harry Otten Prize

No longer is it enough to offer a penny for your thoughts. As a vital player in the meteorological enterprise, your creativity is now worth a whole lot more–to be exact, 25,000 Euros, if you win this year’s Harry Otten Prize for Innovation in Meteorology. The prize, which will be awarded every two years, was established with funds from Netherlands meteorologist/entrepreneur Harry Otten, president of MeteoGroup/Meteo Consult. The prize website explains,

A substantial part of the national gross product in many countries is weather dependent. National weather services and the private sector have been innovative for more than a century to make better use of our meteorological knowledge. However, large gains are still to be made and the prize encourages individuals and groups to come with ideas how meteorology in a practical way can further move society forward.

If you can get your application together (the online process is actually quite straightforward) by the 10 March 2013 deadline, you might end up being one of the select three finalists to present your ideas to the Otten Prize jury at the European Meteorological Society meeting in September 2013. The winner will be announced within a day of the final presentations.
To get more of an idea of how the prize process works–and how inflation has marked up the value of your ideas by 2,500,000%–The Front Page interviewed Harry Otten Prize board member Richard Anthes. Dr. Anthes, who is well known to our community as an AMS past president and the president emeritus of UCAR, graciously provided the following responses:
Front Page: What was Harry Otten’s hope for this prize? Why is the Harry Otten Prize a good thing for our community?
Anthes: Harry Otten wants to encourage people to think of innovative ideas that will contribute to or use the science and technology of meteorology to provide services or products that will benefit society.  The Prize is good for our community because it stimulates us to think in creative new ways about how our science can be advanced and used in constructive ways.
In the past you’ve described this prize for Innovation in Meteorology as rewarding “clearly innovative contributions of meteorology to society.” The prize website gives examples of, among other things, innovative ways of observing and innovative applications of existing technology. You even mention the development of useful mobile weather apps. I’m tempted to call it “innovation by meteorology” rather than “innovation in meteorology”. Where is the emphasis in your search for winners?
You raise a subtle point, and the answer is “both.”  Ideas could include new ways of observing the atmosphere and related environment, new ways of forecasting atmospheric phenomena, or new ways of applying meteorological data, information, and/or forecasts to useful applications.  Key words are new and creative.  Incremental, relatively minor advances in methods or technologies are not likely to win the Prize.  We are looking for “out of the box” ideas, original ideas which may appear surprising.
Can you imagine this prize being won by someone who isn’t even a meteorologist, perhaps a clever business idea or innovative teacher (educational ideas being included)? How do you judge such diverse innovations against each other on societal impact?
We can certainly imagine winning ideas coming from outside the field of meteorology, and in fact we would not be surprised to see innovations coming from people with backgrounds or fields quite different from meteorology.  Perhaps the idea will come from someone looking for a solution to his or her problem that depends on meteorology, or a creative person from the arts or a scientific field other than meteorology.  Ranking such diverse ideas could be difficult, but ultimately it comes to a judgment call by the Board after thorough discussion of the competing ideas.
The list of potential past prize ideas also includes climate adaptation…specifically, “using uncertainty in climate projections in a cost-effective adaptation technique”. How broadly construed is your definition of meteorology for the purposes of the prize?
We have a broad and open-minded Board and will consider seriously a broad range of ideas.  Certainly ideas from fields that neighbor meteorology are encouraged, such as oceanography, air quality, climate, and space weather.  I can also imagine a winner coming from education, information technology or communication.  There needs to be a strong relationship to meteorology and potential applications to benefit society, however.
You say you’re not looking for “relatively small improvements” in existing ideas…perhaps you can give an example of what might be too small an innovation?
This is clearly a judgment call, but a slightly different way of displaying radar or satellite data on a personal device or a higher-resolution forecast model might be examples of incremental improvements that would not compete well.  The important point is that we are encouraging people to really brainstorm and think of brand new ideas.  These ideas do not have to be well developed, nor do they need to be proven.  I sat down one evening with a glass of wine and let my mind wander, and in only an hour I came up with four very different ideas that I would have considered as competitive had they been submitted by a contestant.  Naturally I am not applying for the Prize!
The prize is for ideas that are not just innovative but also practical, and realizable—why all three criteria and how would you define practical v. realizable? 
Innovative is obvious—we are looking for new, original, creative ideas.  Practical means that the idea could lead to an application in a relatively short amount of time, perhaps a few years, but not decades or longer.  Thus a basic research idea that might or might not lead to applications many years down the road would not be appropriate.  Realizable means that the idea could be implemented with a reasonable amount of effort and investment and would not run afoul of any physical laws or ethical issues.
How far along toward realization does the idea have to be? What sort of proof of practicality does the committee want when, at the same time, you’re not looking for ideas that are “well developed, implemented, or published”?
This is a very important question.  We do NOT require that the idea be very far along in development or implementation.  It is conceivable that someone could win with an idea that was not developed at all, but was described in enough detail for us to judge that the idea could be developed and implemented.  In fact, we offer to help with the development of the ideas should the winner wish.
I can imagine some people might want to keep their best ideas for this prize under wraps until they’ve had a chance to establish them, perhaps profit from them. How do you convince people to apply with ideas that aren’t yet published or might later reap profitability?
We hope that this is not a serious issue.  If someone has a great idea that is in an early stage of development, please send it in!  We will protect the intellectual property of the proposer and make public only the broad outlines of the idea.  We will also work with the proposer of the idea in any announcements of the winning idea.  Finally, the amount of the prize itself is likely to help develop patents or property rights protection.
How often do you overhear ideas at meetings, workshops, etc., that seem to you to fit these qualifications? Are such ideas rare, even in our community?
I do not hear the type of ideas we are seeking very often in such fora.  I think really fresh ideas are rare because most people are thinking of incremental advances as part of their jobs—better meteorological displays, higher resolution models and forecasts, more accurate forecasts, better use of ensemble techniques, more accurate or lower cost sensors, higher spectral resolution satellite observations, etc.  But if people tried, I think they would be surprised at how creative they could be.
In the first round of the prize last year two honorable mentions were given out, but no first prize.  What does this say about the minimum standards the Foundation is trying to establish for such a big prize?
The first prize is 25,000 Euros.  That is a substantial prize and the Board wants to set reasonably high standards for winning ideas.  But the standard should not be so high as to make it nearly impossible to win.
The foundation says “efforts of large teams in which the original idea cannot be clearly associated with an individual or a small group of individuals (maximum 3) will not be considered.” Why not consider prizes for large groups?
We want to reward individuals or very small groups that come up with a new idea.  It is unlikely that a new creative idea will be generated by a large group of people.  A large group might be necessary to implement an idea, but the idea itself is likely to originate from one or two people.
Winners will retain full rights to their ideas but when wanted help is offered to realize the winning ideas. What sort of help, under what conditions, does the Prize foundation offer?
We would discuss the possibilities with the winner.  We might advise the person on how to implement the idea, and perhaps put the person in contact with an appropriate private company, university, or government lab that could help the person implement the idea.
What is your goal for the prize, in terms of the kind of impact the Prize can have on the community, or change it can bring about?
In the best case an idea would result in a new product or type of information that would generate revenue through a private company while supporting society by producing useful information or predictions, saving lives and property, improving the quality of life, and creating an economic benefit—an idea that would make a significant difference for the better.