WeatherZine #21


Editorial

Six Heretical Notions About Weather Policy

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
Environmental and Societal Impacts Group

When in 1996 freshman Representative Dick Chrysler (R-MI) proposed eliminating the National Weather Service, he declared that the agency was not needed because "I get my weather from the weather channel." Mr. Chrysler's odd view reinforced the perspective of many in the weather community that policy makers have little understanding of meteorological research and operations. On more than one occasion I have heard weather scientists and administrators look with envy to the fortunes of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program that began in 1977 and continues today with about $100 million in annual funding, as well as to the fortunes of programs focused on global change, and more recently, on the carbon cycle. Indeed, the seeming low priority placed on the U.S. Weather Research Program, as measured by appropriated budgets, gives some plausibility to the idea that weather has been less successful in the budget process than other research communities (see this issue's guest editorial).

The perception that the weather community has been less successful than other communities has led me to take a closer look at its role in the broader environment of science policies and priorities. My initial reaction was that many of the obstacles standing in the way of increased resources for the nation's weather enterprise are to be found inside not outside the community. I rapidly realized that I was quickly entering what some colleagues might call "heretical" territory. So I thought I'd raise these heretical notions, to stimulate debate and discussion, and hopefully to initiate a dialogue on important issues facing the community.

To continue to raise these issues, I present below "Six Heretical Notions about Weather Policy" that I presented twice last year, first to a joint meeting of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Federal Committee for Meteorological Research and Supporting Services, and then second to the Interdepartmental Committee on Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Here is what I presented.

Purpose: These "heretical" notions are raised to stimulate debate and discussion. No claim is made as to their relative or absolute truth.

The weather community postulates that improved forecasts will benefit society.

Thus, the logic about what to do is obvious.

  • To improve forecasts we must advance science.
  • To advance science we need improved models.
  • To test and use improved models we need better observations.
  • To assimilate the better observations and run the improved models we need faster computers.
  • More funding will enable faster computers, better observations, improved models, and advances in science.

Therefore, more funding for advancements in science, models, observations, and computers are necessary and sufficient to benefit society. A corollary is that the greater the rate of these advancements, the greater the benefits to society. This logic seems so obvious and inescapable that to many, great frustration is sometimes expressed when policy makers in places like Congress and the Office of Management and Budget apparently fail to grasp its self-evidence.

But how might a well-meaning, but scrutinizing, person evaluate this logic? They might raise some "heretical" notions!!

  1. The atmospheric sciences collect more data than is used or can be used in either research or operations. When field programs or satellites are funded, subsequent analysis often is not. This circumstance makes it difficult for people outside the community (and indeed some inside) to understand why more data is needed, and what its ultimate value is in terms of improvements in forecasts as well as opportunities foregone.

  2. Many claim that the forecasts in the United States are the best in the world. At the same time, some folks claim that the Europeans (www.ecmwf.int) have passed us by. Some who say that the United States is keeping pace with the Europeans argue that we have done so because of innovative use of observations (via creative data assimilation techniques and use of scarce computer time). This is tantamount to saying that funding limitations have motivated extra value from existing resources. The bottom line: Do we really know how "good" forecasts have to be, and at what cost?

  3. In any case, public funding for the atmospheric sciences is truly enormous — approximately $2-3 billion is spend on weather and climate research and operations each. When the weather community says that forecasts could improve but only for a small budget increase, one might expect a policy maker to reply: "Great, you should be able to handle that with existing expenditures!"

  4. Much more research is produced than is used, or can be used, in the operational forecast process. Much is "left on the floor." The connections between research and the use of research in operations and ultimately in benefits to decision-makers is poorly understood. Until the community can link a request for more resources with expected effects on forecasts and ultimately benefits, securing significant additional funding will be difficult.

  5. In any case, improved use and value is in many instances constrained by dated products and a lack of understanding of the needs of users. Remember the case of Grand Forks when a technically accurate forecast was misinterpreted and misused because neither forecasters nor local decision makers understood what it meant. Scientific and technological advances mean little if they are not well incorporated into decision making.

  6. The weather community is so large and full of overlaps and redundancies that no one really knows what the universe looks like. It is difficult for a community like the weather community to speak with one voice, but at a minimum there should be some knowledge of the whole. And there is the destructive public-private debate over roles and responsibilities. Obtaining such knowledge and resolving this debate would greatly enhance credibility when a case is made for more support from the public.

So what needs to be done to better serve the interests of the weather community, the public, and their elected representatives? As a first step these six heresies might be discussed, debated, and perhaps even dismissed by the community. In the process of doing so, the community might find itself better prepared to deal with the views of well-meaning, but scrutinizing public officials.

— Roger A. Pielke, Jr.

Comments? thunder@ucar.edu

[ Top of Page ]


WeatherZine #21 Home Page | Comments and Feedback | Site Map
ESIG Home Page | Roger Pielke, Jr.'s Home Page | Societal Aspects of Weather
[ Societal Aspects of Weather – Text Version ]