Turning Scientists into Communicators

With the word “communication” flying around the meeting all week, it might become easy to lose track of how it applies to each of us as individuals–or whether it applies to us at all. Does your role as a meteorologist also involve being a communicator? Isn’t that the job of the professional communicators?

This weekend’s communication workshop, “Integrating Communication, Weather, and Climate: More Than Just ”Talking about the Weather!’, asked those questions to some communication professionals, and their answers provided new insights to the many meteorologists in attendance. They ultimately agreed on a couple of key points: 1) the complexities of climate science make communication particularly difficult, and 2) we all have a role in communicating our science, whether it be to the public, government officials, colleagues, students, or even to our families, neighbors, and friends.

And why shouldn’t scientists also be communicators? Panelist Kim Curtis of Resource Media pointed out that scientists are among the most trusted groups by the public, more than even friends and family (and that is despite the fact that only 18% of the public actually know a scientist personally.)

Graphic from a joint Nature/Scientific American survey asking how much respondents trusted various groups of people on a scale of 1 (strongly distrust) to 5 (strongly trust).

The problem is that there are serious obstacles to getting the message through to the public and insuring they are receiving accurate information. Kathy Rowan of George Mason University highlighted the difficulties of communicating slow-onset risks–that is, hazards (such as long-term climate change) that progress over an extended period of time. She pointed out that humans are wired to focus on what is directly in front of them and often have difficulty looking into the future.

Expanding on that point, Bud Ward of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media pointed out that when discussing climate change, the public has difficulty accepting costs that must be paid today when tangible benefits may not be felt for a very long time. As he mentioned, we have trouble even agreeing whether to use the term”climate change” or “global warming.” And of course, there are the political aspects related to communicating climate to the public. All of this obviously generates confusion.

So how can scientists overcome these difficulties and act as de facto communicators? The panelists’ recommendations included making explanations as succint and as simple as possible and addressing and discussing uncertainty in science rather than ignoring it. But the prevailing opinion was that scientists communicate most effectively when they make science relevant to the public. Some panelists noted the importance of telling stories that help the public understand how climate impacts their daily lives. And Ward explained how he avoids contentious political discussion when he speaks to local communities by emphasizing the specific ways climate could impact those areas.

According to the panelists, the ultimate goal is make science interesting to the general public while also providing technically accurate information–a fine balance, indeed, but one that hopefully will become less daunting after this week’s meeting.

Bring Your Popcorn!

Satisfy your movie fix all week at the Weather Video Preview Theater in room 303. Close to 50 different movies will be shown throughout the meeting, with screenings running from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. every day. DVDs of many of the movies will be available for purchase at the AMS Resource Center in Exhibit Hall 4D (they can also be found online at http://www.sky-fire.tv/index.cgi/INDEX.HTML), and a portion of proceeds from every DVD sold will be directed to AMS educational and outreach programs.
The movies were specifically chosen for the quality of both their production and their scientific content, with the subject matter ranging from the quick-moving (lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, and extreme storms of all kinds) to the slowest of the slow (glaciers). 
Among those films that are back by popular demand are the British Broadcasting Cooperation’s Cloudspotting program (a compilation of high-definition time-lapse skyscapes set to music), as well as features from the National Science Foundation’s series for the ResearchChannel.
Check out below the preview of the Nova special, Hunt for the Supertwister, one of the films to be featured at the Preview Theater.

Science, the Write Way

by Emily Morgan, University of Miami-Florida
Writing is a form of expression that has become a difficult task for members of the student scientific community. This is not a remark on the basic skill set for a meteorology student, but rather a result of neglect. A huge part of the academic field focuses more on computer-aided analysis, modeling, computation and processes that can very readily led themselves to good writing but often don’t, perhaps because it’s so much more convenient to move on to the next task without explaining the first.
I’ve often wished the science courses I’ve participated in included an increased focus on written analysis of topics, even just simple written forecast discussions or responses to research results, so that we become more familiar with expressing ourselves concisely and fully to a broad audience. It boils down to trying to communicate through a medium that cannot rely on facial expressions and you-know-what-I-mean’s. There is no “question and answer” session after the essay, aside from disgruntled and confused e-mails from readers, and the writer cannot instantly respond to the blank faces of his readers. So the readers, not able to grasp the main theme of the writing, leave the writer without an audience for his point. A terrible fate this is, as writing in science has vital purpose: to convey important research findings, to apply for funding to allow research to flourish, to explain a complex process to students at any level. So why is this form of communication neglected, shunned, even dreaded?
Dr. David Schultz, presenting “Practical Advice for Students and Scientists,” addressed some of my concerns. His seminar focused on commanding, concise titles and effective abstract writing, his mindset being that these are components of a paper that are the most relevant to the reader, who should be the main focus of the paper. His fourth and final rule of writing was “We write for our audience, not for ourselves,” something he reiterated throughout the seminar. He presented a relationship between an effective writing process and an effective forecasting process, where both benefit from a constant narrowing in focus from broad scale ideas to microscale changes. Active writing, rather than passive writing, he claims, is a much more effective way to write. Not all in attendance were comfortable with these ideas, claiming that they’ve always been told to use the passive voice and including anything in first person is seen as unprofessional. One individual was in awe that Dr. Schultz would even suggest replacing the phrase “it was suggested that” with the phrase “I think.” I believe that it is this mindset that continues the difficulty of embracing scientific writing and it was very inspiring to see someone who was intent on easing people out of these bad habits.
Finally, in what I believed was his most important point, he urged the room to “treat all your writing as if it counted.” So it was wonderful to hear this from Dr. Schultz as a reassurance to a sometimes-bewildered writer. Writing can be an intimidating affair, even with the right skills, so to bolster one’s confidence with the thought that this writing does, in fact, matter can be the difference between long, wishy-washy reports and strong, concise writing.
Editor’s note: David Schultz is conducting a workshop, “Eloquent Professional Communication,”  Tuesday, 1:30 pm-3 pm, WSCC 3B. He is also presenting “Best Resources for Communication Skills for Scientists” at the Atmospheric Science Librarians International session, 8:45-9:45 am Wednesday, WSCC 304.

WeatherFest Wows Seattle

More than 4,ooo people converged on the convention center yesterday for WeatherFest 2011.  The tenth year of the interactive science and weather fair kicked off with a festive ribbon cutting.

Par for the course, kids were an eager and active presence, crowding the exhibits that featured games and hands-on demonstrations.

With almost sixty exhibits, the weather extravaganza provided numerous ways of finding fun in science education. More WeatherFest videos are posted on our Ametsoc YouTube channel.

A Passion for Mentoring

by Emily Morgan, University of Miami-Florida
Saturday afternoon, I literally almost bumped into Kenneth Carey, who quickly introduced himself as one of the AMS Beacons. He followed my fellow students and me up to our next seminar in the Student Conference. He was very charismatic, very animated, and quite welcoming to a first-time student. Within the first few minutes, he launched into his passion for mentoring and both what it means to him and what effects he has seen it have on others. It was very interesting to hear him laud this communal support separate from any one organization; it really made his argument sincere.
Presenting on “Success in the Job Market,” Mr. Carey welcomed students with a display of many opportunities, urging them to be resourceful and keep their eyes open for opportunities in both federal and private sectors. The most interesting part of his presentation was his list of “10 Skills to Succeed.” All were sound points:

10. Pursuit of excellence.
9. Persistence.
8. Ability to work with others.
7. Innovation.
6. Decision-making.
5. Ability to get things done.
4. Networking.
3. Balance, relaxation.
2. Writing.
1. Public speaking.

Mr. Carey provided much advice for honing these skills, but following this slide, he spoke again about mentoring, whether being a mentor or the mentored. Because of his passion or his persistence, I was sincerely moved by his presentation. It seemed that his only goal was to benefit the meteorological community by encouraging its members to occasionally think of the whole, rather than its parts. Often we can get lost in our own goals and forget that the student beside you has them as well. More so than improving on decision-making (Point 6) and persistence (Point 9), I have become convinced that sharing and working together with my colleagues (Point  8!) will bring me success.

Special Session Today on the 2010 Icelandic Volcano Eruptions

Iceland's eruptions, 2010: Getting close safely for measurements was one of the problems with observing the initial eruption conditions that affect plume dispersion modeling.

The Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption in Iceland lasted from the 15 April to 25 May 2010.  In addition to threatening local people and their livestock, the volcano sent an ash plume to heights of up to 26,000 feet. Due to the weather conditions, the plume spread over a large part of Europe. Because volcanic ash can cause airplane engines to fail, the plume disrupted aviation over several weeks.
Weather Services played a key role in  predicting the spread of the ash and advising the aviation industry. The forecasts were based on safety thresholds for flying through volcanic ash set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) along with the national aviation authorities and aircraft manufacturers.
Scientists modelled the evolution of the ash cloud using dispersion  models and trajectory models. The model predictions were compared with  observations from satellites, aircraft and ground-based networks.
Supplemental ash concentration information from the UK Met Office

The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull presented challenges to the meteorological community, especially in Europe.  The event highlighted the importance of enhanced international coordination to ensure a consistency of approach in the observation, forecasting and dissemination of volcanic ash information and warnings.
At the AMS annual meeting, papers covering the observing, forecasting and warning to the public and especially to the airline industry regarding the effects of the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull will be presented today (Monday) at the Special International Applications Session 1B: The Eyjafjallajökull Volcanic Eruption of 2010 (1:30 pm). At 2 pm Ian Lisk of the UK Met Office talks about how the aviation industry, grounded by safety rules, put pressure on meteorologists to produce ash concentration charts to supplement the normal information from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre in the UK. This was an added burden on dispersion modeling services (with the NAME model), but the results proved promising:

The largest uncertainty in the computer modelling of ash dispersion and transport is the ability to accurately reflect the status of the eruption at model initialization. This is less of a modelling issue and much more a case of being able to accurately and safely observe what the volcano is doing in real time, in particular, the:
•Height, diameter and time variance of eruptive column;
•Assessment of ash concentration and particle size/distribution;
•Ash deposition close to the volcano i.e. ash that is not available to be transported.

Unlike atmospheric phenomena, volcanic eruptions are in fixed places and don’t condense or disappear out of thin air, like atmospheric phenomena…but apparently observing them isn’t much easier.

Teaching Excellence: Mentor Realizes Dream Award

Henry E. Fuelberg, a professor of meteorology with Florida State University, is this year’s recipient of the AMS award for Teaching Excellence. The Front Page sat down with Dr. Fuelberg to learn more about him, his research program at FSU, and the devotion he has to seeing his team of students excel in their budding careers as meteorologists. He noted after the interview, available below, that of all the prestigious honors the AMS bestows, “this was the award most important to me.”

Fuelberg will receive his award at the AMS Awards Banquet Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the Washington State Convention Center, Halls 6A-B-C-D.

Comrades in Communication

The weekend’s workshop on “Integrating Communication, Weather, and Climate: More Than Just ‘Talking About the Weather!'” was the result of a collaborative effort between the AMS and the National Communication Association (NCA), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of communication throughout society. The NCA will continue to be a presence at the meeting throughout the week, helping to contribute to the unique interdisciplinarity this year in Seattle.

Congratulations, Student Sleuths!

The student conference contest had a happy ending, it just ended a little sooner than mere mortals would expect. Torey Farney, of Cornell University won First Prize before 4 pm Saturday by managing to anticipate the answer before the announcement of the last clue…something to do with mathematically narrowing the range of possible answers and inspired guesswork. Or was that ESP (Earth Science Perspicacity)? His prize was a free travel and registration for next year’s Annual Meeting in New Orleans.
Camaron Plourde, of Embry-Riddle University, also answered early, winning Second Prize (an Amazon Kindle); and Leah Werner, of Embry-Riddle, won Third Prize (an Amazon gift certificate).
Not that they were the only ones to answer correctly. Some 80 percent of the attendees solved the quest.
Meanwhile, in a related drawing, Gavin Chensue, Univ. of Michigan won a copy of the AMS book, Eloquent Science, by David Schultz; and Adam Atia, City College of New York, won a copy the recently published AMS book, History of Broadcast Meteorology, by Robert Henson.
Thanks to AMS’s co-sponsors in the Weather Quest, Atmospheric Science Librarians International and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for the great prizes.

The Weather Quest winners: (L-r) Torey Farney, Gavin Chensue, Adam Atia, Camaron Plourde, and Leah Werner.

Not Sure What to Say? Talk about Uncertainty.

Since communication is the topic of the week, the new AMS draft statement on “Communicating Science” is never far from our minds during this meeting. The statement is available for comment until 2 February, which means discussions here could help shape that document.
Not surprisingly the statement addresses how AMS membership should communicate not only the “nature and practice of science” but also its results to a wide variety of nonscientific audiences.
One of the most challenging aspects of that communication is summed up baldly in the statement:

Uncertainty is not equivalent to not knowing.

Therein lies a major communication challenge, because the public expect scientists to “know” things by making confident predictions, like where the planet moves and which way things fall.
Yet uncertainty is built into the scientific process just as much as making successful predictions. Uncertainty fuels new experiments and hypotheses. It can be expressed mathematically. And it actually is increasingly a basis for sophisticated, probabilistic decision making tools. Says the draft statement:

In … studies of complex phenomena such as weather and climate, [uncertainty] may contribute to knowing more.

But:

This idea has not been adequately communicated to the public.

Worse yet, as practitioners of prediction, scientists look bad when they admit uncertainty:

In a world of sound bites and rapid-fire news coverage, scientists struggle with how to convey to the public the additional information contained in statements of uncertainty and probability without seeming less credible than other voices conveying the appearance of certainty.

Since uncertainty is at the soul of the scientific process as well as its products, communicating uncertainty is at the very heart of this week’s meetings. A Town Hall meeting on “The Role of the Forecaster in Probabilistic Decision Making” on Monday (24 January, 12:15 p.m., WSCC 606) continues the community follow-up to the 2006 National Research Council report, “Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty.” In this case, forecasters face a double-whammy. Not only is uncertainty difficult and unwelcome, but, according to the AMS statement draft,

there exists in the public mindset distrust in the ability of models to provide useful information.

On Thursday (27 January, 11 a.m.-12:15 a.m., WSCC 611) we’ll get some concrete examples of overcoming these problems in a session on “Communicating Uncertainty,” part of the Second Conference on Weather, Climate, and the New Energy Economy.” Jeanne Schneider of USDA will open with “The Necessity of Communicating Uncertainty—Lessons from the Interface.” And Deborah Smith et al. of Remote Sensing Systems will talk about “Communicating Satellite MW Ocean Product Errors to a Variety of Users” at noon.
Of course many other presentations will touch on this topic one way or another. One thing is sure: uncertainty is a major part of this year’s discussions.