by William Hooke, AMS Policy Program Director
(Note: This is one of the first postings from Dr. Hooke’s new blog, Living on the Real Earth, an American Meteorological Society project probing some of the basic questions underlying the goals of our community as it serves society.)
Here’s a question. Why should a blog claiming to look for answers to big issues (what kind of world is likely? what kind of world do we want? what kind of world is possible if we act effectively?) zoom in on a few hundred people meeting in the middle of Pennsylvania for four days?
Here’s the answer. Because this handful of people, due to a convergence of circumstances – some strategic, and some accidental – holds some of the keys to the kingdom.
Let’s begin with a look at who’s here in State College for the 2010 AMS Summer Community Meeting. Participants are for the most part in the business of answering the first question: what kind of world is likely? That is, they provide weather and climate products and services, or they are doing the research that provides the basis for those products and services. That said, they have a range of backgrounds. They’ve come from all over the United States. Some are from the public sector, from government agencies. Some are from for-profit corporations. Some work in research universities. Within each sector, participants run the gamut from bench-level scientists and forecasters to managers of such work to high-level policy officials and corporate leaders. A considerable number have played several different roles over extended careers. Ask them whether they are private-sector or public-sector, or scientists or leaders, and they’ll either tell you what their job title is at the moment, or confess that they’re conflicted.
Secondly, if asked what kind of world they might want, they wouldn’t try to oversimplify that world. They wouldn’t seek to control climate or weather, or limit its variability, or even eliminate hazardous events; they wouldn’t see that as realistic. They’d say instead that they want a world where regardless of what the weather and climate might do next, these changes can be anticipated, in time to seize the benefits (the water for crops, the good weather for transportation or recreation, etc.) and moderate the hazards (the cycles of flood and drought, the damaging storms, and so on). They’d hope their science and services could be used to save lives and property, foster economic growth, protect the environment and ecosystems, and promote geopolitical stability.
Neither would they try to oversimplify the coping strategies. They wouldn’t see the job as all public-sector, or entirely corporate. They wouldn’t see decisions and actions as
Weathercasters in Multiple Exposures
A recent blog post by Bob Henson, author of the new AMS book, Weather on the Air, serves as a good summary of the growing news coverage of broadcast meteorologists’ take on global warming. Much of this coverage stems from a recent survey of weathercasters released by George Mason University, in which, as Henson notes:
…the most incendiary finding was that 26% of the 500-plus weathercasters surveyed agreed with the claim that “global warming is a scam,” a meme supported by Senator James Inhofe and San Diego weathercaster John Coleman. On the other hand, only about 15% of TV news directors agreed with the “scam” claim in another recent survey by Maibach and colleagues. And Maibach himself stresses the glass-half-full finding that most weathercasters are interested in climate change and want to learn more.
Henson cites The New York Times, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, and Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report as some of those that have examined the issue recently. The most recent “exposé” was a 10-minute segment entitled “Weather Wars,” on Australian “Dateline”; it features a number of AMS members.
Cool Roofs Seen in Black, White, and Green
Science teaches us not to answer questions in black and white terms—the meaning of data usually has many shades of gray. So it is with figuring out the micro and macro effects that different roof coverings might have on global warming or energy efficiency. The answers are starting to look more complex, and more promising, than ever.
For example, it would seem natural when studying rooftops and their effects on climate large and small to focus on extremes of albedo—in other words, black and white surfaces. This is sometimes the case in simplified modeling studies. But at this week’s AMS 9th Symposium on Urban Environment, in Keystone, Colorado, Adam Scherba of Portland State University submitted findings that moved beyond simple comparisons of white (“cool”) roofs versus black roof coverings. He and his colleagues mixed roof coverings, notably photovoltaic panels and greenery (which has the advantage of staying cooler during the day but not, like white roofs, getting much colder at night). The mix makes sense when you consider that roofs are also prime territory for harvesting solar energy. Scherba et al. write that
While addition of photovoltaic panels above a roof provides an obvious energy generation benefit, it is important to note that such systems – whether integrated into the building envelope, or mounted above the roof – can also result in an increase of convective heat flux into the urban environment. Our analysis shows that integration of green roofs with photovoltaic panels can partially offset this undesirable side effect, while producing additional benefits.
This neither-black-nor-white-nor-all-green approach to dealing with surface radiation makes sense from both energy and climate warming perspectives, especially given the low sun angles, cold nights, and snow cover in some climates. For instance, a recent paper, in Environmental Research Letters, uses global atmospheric modeling to estimate that boosting albedo by only 0.25 on roofs worldwide—in other words, not a fully “cool” scenario of all white (albedo: 1.0) roofs—can offset about a year’s worth of global carbon emissions.
And the authors of a recent modeling study (combining global and urban canyon simulation) published in Geophysical Research Letters simulated a world with all-white roofs but showed that:
Global space heating increased more than air conditioning decreased, suggesting that end-use energy costs must be considered in evaluating the benefits of white roofs.
Delving directly into such costs this week at the AMS meeting is a paper from a team led by Anthony Dominguez of the University of California-San Diego. They looked at the effects of photovoltaic panels on the energy needs in the structure below the roof, not the atmosphere above it.
Did they find that a building is easier to keep comfortable when covered by solar panels? Well, if you need to air-condition during the day, yes. If, however, like many people on the East Coast this summer, you need to keep cooling at night, then no. This is science—don’t expect a black-and-white answer.
Remaking Stable Boundary Layer Research, From the Ground Up
A recently accepted essay for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Joe Fernando and Jeff Weil is good background reading for this week’s AMS 19th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence in Keystone, Colorado.
Fernando and Weil point out that research into the lowest layer of the atmosphere where we all live and breathe will need to evolve to meet needs in numerical weather prediction. While progress is apparent in the modeling of the boundary layer when it is stirred into convection, those models have obvious shortcomings when the low-level air is not buoyant—the stable boundary layer typically encountered at nighttime. The stable boundary layer controls transport of pollution, formation of fog and nocturnal jets in the critical time before the atmosphere “wakes up” in daytime heating. Weil, in his presentation this Thursday at Keystone calls the still-flawed modeling of the stable situation “one of the more outstanding challenges of planetary boundary layer research.”
Fernando and Weil write in BAMS that study of the stable boundary needs to be retooled to embrace interactions of relevant processes from a variety of scales of motion. The weakness and multiplicity of relevant stable boundary processes means that investigations of individual factors will not be fruitful enough to improve numerical prediction. Scientists need to temper their natural tendencies to try to isolate phenomena in their field studies and modeling and instead seek
simultaneous observations over a range of scales, quantifying heat, momentum, and mass flux contributions of myriad processes to augment the typical study of a single scale or phenomenon (or a few) in isolation. Existing practices, which involves painstakingly identifying dominant processes from data, need to be shifted toward aggregating the effects of multiple phenomena. We anticipate development of high fidelity predictive models that largely rely on accurate specification of fluxes (in terms of eddy diffusivities) through computational grid boxes, whereas extant practice is to use phenomenological models that draw upon simplified analytical theories and observations and largely ignore cumulative effects/errors of some processes.
This new perspective, the authors argue, will be a “paradigm shift” in research and modeling.
Time to Tone Down Hurricane Season Prognostications?
With a third of the Atlantic hurricane season over and just three storms named (albeit accompanied by one tropical depression), should hurricane season prognosticators consider backing down from their early season forecasts of a wild season? And we’re not just talking about one or two Punxatawny Phils here — this year realized eight separate forecasts of named storms and hurricanes for the six-month season, which began June 1. Predictions of the number of named storms ranged from 17 to a lofty 23 — far above the average of 11 named storms realized over the last 60 years.
The real meat of hurricane season is from mid August through mid October, when about 90% of a season’s storms form. Based on the May and June forecasts, that would equate to about 15-21 tropical storms and hurricanes — still a substantially busy season. But the chatter has begun on the blogs (2nd topic on this page) and in the online and mainstream news that this year will not be like 2005. By this point in that season the Atlantic had already seen eight named storms, including two major hurricanes. The 2005 season went on to realize 27 named storms, including Category 5 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and one unnamed storm added to the tally in the post-season.
So what drove the early season forecasts? And why might they need to be lowered? As in 2005, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the Atlantic basin have been well above average since spring. In fact, record warm SSTs have dominated the main tropical cyclone development region—from 10°N to 20°N between the coast of Africa and Central America (20°W – 80°W)—for five consecutive months (see the 2nd topic entry on this page). Combine that with lower-than-normal surface pressure basin wide and the fact that El Niño was not only ending but appeared poised to transition to La Niña conditions (which it did) in the tropical Pacific, both of which are factors that can lead to more than the usual number of storms, and forecasters had almost no choice but to set their sights rather high. Conditions appeared very favorable for a quick start to a long and busy season, not unlike 2005.
Problem is, that hasn’t happened. The tropical cyclones that have developed this year have struggled. Despite all the favorable features, it appears dry air and more importantly strong wind shear across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico in June and July have kept storms in check. Typically, the atmosphere over the Atlantic Basin moistens significantly starting in August as the westward-moving Saharan dust outbreaks wane. And seasonal wind shear also becomes more conducive for storm development by August. Still, the next four months would need to see the pace of tropical storm and hurricane formation come fast and furious to realize the forecasts. It could happen: in 1995, 16 tropical storms and hurricanes, including five major hurricanes, formed one after another after another from the last days of July through the end of October, leaving just 10 days in the three-month period free of any storms. But that kind of hurricane history isn’t likely to repeat itself. Even 2005 had more storm-free days in the same portion of the season.
So what will forecasters do? Time will tell as two of the leading forecast teams—NOAA and the Colorado State University Tropical Meteorology Project, led by Phil Klotzbach and William Gray—update their forecasts this week. (Check these links for their updated forecasts: CSU (Aug. 4) and NOAA (Aug. 5).
Update …
Largely Unchanged Forecasts Point to Busy Months Ahead
With their August updates, hurricane season forecasters have left their predictions generally intact. The CSU forecast (pdf file) remains the same with 18 named storms total, 10 hurricanes, and 5 major hurricanes. After increasing its forecast in July by one named storm that was likely to be a hurricane, Tropical Storm Risk (TSR), a private British forecasting company, is back to its early June forecast numbers, with its August update (pdf file) again calling for about 18 named storms, 10 hurricanes, and 4-5 major hurricanes projected. NOAA shaved down the upper range of its seasonal forecast numbers while keeping the lower end of the range intact for named storms and hurricanes, and narrowing the range of major hurricane expected. Its updated forecast is for 14-20 named storms, 8-12 hurricanes, and 4-6 major hurricanes, versus its June forecast of 14-23 storms, 8-14 hurricanes and 3-7 major hurricanes. Florida State University lowered its prediction by 2, from 17 to 15 named storms and from 10 to 8 hurricanes.
Mercury Rising, Snow Disappearing
This past June continued a recent spate of unprecedented heat around the world, as NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) announced it was the warmest June on record (the NCDC’s data extends back to 1880), making it the fourth consecutive month of record heat. The combined global land and ocean temperature for June was 16.2°C (61.1°F), placing it 0.68°C (1.22°F) higher than the twentieth-century average. Remarkably, it was the 304th consecutive month of global temperatures above the twentieth-century average. The last month that global temperatures were below that average was February of 1985.
March, April, and May of 2010 were also the warmest of their respective months on record, and the period of January-June is also the warmest ever recorded.
With the warmth came a striking decrease in snow, as NOAA announced that North American snow cover at the end of April was at its lowest point for that time of the year since satellite record keeping began in 1967, at 2.2 million square kilometers below average. This was just four months after the snowiest December on record, as well as significantly higher-than-n0rmal snow cover in January and February, demonstrating the profound ramifications of the warm temperatures that followed.
Oklahoma School of Meteorology Gets New Director
David Parsons started as the new director of the University of Oklahoma School of Meteorology this week. OU is the largest meteorology program in the nation, with nearly 400 undergraduate and graduate students. Parsons, who replaced Fred Carr, comes to the position from NCAR as a senior scientist and cochair of the THORPEX Project.
Parsons received his B.S. in meteorology from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Washington. His career has been multi-dimensional with major contributions to the field. He has written over 120 papers, book chapters, and reports, more than 40 of which appear in scholarly journals or refereed books. Parson’s research contributions span a wide range of subject matter, including advanced sounding and electromagnetic profiling technologies and techniques, mesoscale model parameterizations, extratroptical and tropical rainband physics and dynamics, and definitive dryline studies, to name just a few. Recent works include the role of transport and diffusion in the stable nocturnal boundary layer surrounding Salt Lake City, Utah. He has been nominated twice for the NCAR Publication Prize as well as the WMO Vaisala Award.
Named a Fellow of AMS in 2009. Parsons also served as panel chair on the Mesoscale Chapter for the AMS Monograph on Severe Local Storms, as editor of JAS, and was a member of the AMS Committee on Severe Local Storms.
The Big Impact of BAMS
BAMS has done it again. After claiming the number one spot for Impact Factor on the Thompson Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) ranking in 2008, BAMS came in first in the Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences category once again in 2009.
The impact factor, or IF, is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals. Devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the ISI (now part of Thomson Reuters), the IF is calculated yearly and journals are ranked taking into account two years of citations. The total number of citations for BAMS in 2009 was 9,074 with an IF of 6.123.
The IF is primarily used to compare different journals within a field, with larger impact factors suggesting greater influence, or impact, in the field. Four other AMS journals placed in the top twenty with Journal of Climate coming in at number five, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences at thirteen, Journal of Hydrometeorology at fifteen, and Monthly Weather Review at twenty. The newest AMS journal, Weather, Climate, and Society will appear in the IF rankings for the first time in 2011 when there is sufficient citation data to calculate a score.
Join the Climate Services Dialogue Now
At the behest of Congress, the National Academy of Public Administration is formally studying of “organizational options for a Climate Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).” Until the end of Sunday, 27 June, you can participate in the open discussion at the NAPA Climate Dialogue web site.
The input NAPA is seeking focuses on the following questions:
What climate information and services do you find most useful currently and why? Who provides them?
How could your access to climate information and services be improved?
What mechanisms would you recommend to enable ongoing communication of your climate information and service needs to NOAA?
How should the NOAA Climate Service engage with other providers of climate information and services to meet your information needs?
What is driving your need for climate information or services?
The range of input is already impressive and thought-provoking, discussing the future of specific NOAA offices, educational aims, data archiving, the role of prediction and research in the future Service, and more. For instance, while some comments address the possible savings by reducing overlapping climate responsibilities across Federal agencies, others criticize reorganization for reorganization’s sake:
There are already excellent programs in the federal government for calculating [hydro-climatic statistics], updating them, and delivering them to users. The issue is that these programs are seriously underfunded and thus the information is seriously out of date.
It frequently seems that agencies respond to problems by reorganizing rather than by supporting the good programs that already exist. In my experience this is usually a mistake. A climate service should point people to these kinds of information and support keeping them up to date, but should not try to take this role.
Here’s another along a similar vein:
As a long time NOAA partner working in the field, I am very concerned about adding infrastructure in the Beltway, especially at a time when so much more is required of NOAA in the field. As an extramural partner funded by OAR that is ocean ecosystem goal-related, versus climate, I am concerned about what will happen to the rest of OAR when the NCS takes away more than half the program and budget.
Others have a more hopeful take on
New AMS Book Gets Behind the Camera
I was seven years old when I first came under the spell of weather, both on television and outside. It was a muggy spring night in Oklahoma, and severe thunderstorms were approaching, as they so often do that time of year. As I sat watching one of the particularly mindless situation comedies peculiar to the 1960s, the show was interrupted by a serious young woman talking about tornadoes.
How does she know what the weather’s doing? I wondered. The way Lola Hall described terrifying storms with such calmness and authority carried a touch of magic for me. From that night onward, I was hooked on meteorology, and the way television and weather interacted.
–Robert Henson, preface to Weather on the Air: A History of Broadcast Meteorology
Many a weather enthusiast first became fascinated with the weather by watching their local television meteorologist on the nightly news. Through the years, the TV weather report has a created a rich history that uniquely reflects the evolution of both science and show business. 
Now, just in time for the 38th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, AMS Books has released Weather on the Air: A History of Broadcast Meteorology, by UCAR’s Robert Henson. It’s the most comprehensive book on the subject in print.
Henson’s narrative starts at the earliest days of TV, with the predictions of Muncie, Indiana’s Jim Fidler and–soon thereafter–the animated character Wooly Lamb on WNBT in New York City. The story continues through the comedians, “weather girls,” and other entertainers who often presented the weather reports in the ’50s and ’60s, to the eye-catching graphics, technological advancements, and the rise of 24/7 TV weather in more recent times. On the way, Henson explores key developments in the history of broadcast meteorology, including the effort to professionalize weathercasting, the advancement of women and people of color in the field, the complex interrelationships between government and private forecasters, the evolution of severe weather warnings, and the effects of climate change science and the Internet on current broadcasts.
Ultimately, the story is not just a history of meteorology on TV, but, as Bob Ryan writes in the forward, it’s “a story of the history of meteorology itself. A story of the advance in science and the application of the sciences we love. It is a story of the advances in technology and broadcast technology, the advances in how we communicate.”
You can find more information and order the book here.