Expert: Jason - 7/2/2004

Question
CAN A PERSON CALL HIMSELF A METEOROLOGIST IF THE ONLY TRAINING HE HAS HAD IS THE BROADCAST METEOROLOGY PROGRAM AT MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY?

Answer
As far as what kind of jobs are out there there's many different areas, such as:

National Weather Service/Public forecasting
TV Broadcast Weather
Media Weather Provider Companies  
Air Quality Agencies
Aerospace Companies  
University-based Research
Forensic Meteorology
Military


the private sector to work closely with the National Weather Service (NWS) in sending a consistent message to the public when severe storm and/or flash flood watches and warnings are issued. Let me make it clear that I was addressing warnings and watches only! Routine daily and longer-term forecasts are not discussed here and were not considered in my Newsletter Message. Mr. Myers, however, takes issue with my message. He believes that the public has the right to know about other opinions regarding the need for warnings from private companies that may or may not be at odds with the NWS warnings. The private forecaster, he suggests, has equal information, equal tools, and equal training to issue warnings or watches for life and property threatening storms. Further, the private sector is not encumbered by government procedure and policy. This is all part of healthy competition, Mr. Myers states, and is guaranteed by the constitution, since we all are free to express our "views". He goes on to say that the government cannot and should not suppress or detract in any way private opinion. The public has the right to hear the divergent opinions on a storm (tornado, hurricane, etc.) and is intelligent enough to make the call on which one to act. In fact, Mr. Myers believes that the public can use common sense to successfully evaluate a televised radar display and thereby determine the best course of action.

I strongly disagree and I will explain some of my reasons why here. Barry Myers takes issue with my statement that when people are given conflicting information they will generally take no action at all and lives may be lost. He states that my premise has value only if warning information by the National Weather Service is always accurate. Indeed, if that were the case my message would not be needed. It was written precisely because the NWS watches and warnings are not always accurate. Moreover, my statement concerning human behavior when faced with conflicting advice in storm warnings did not arise from my opinion; rather it was a statement of fact as a result of research by social scientists who study the human response to warnings (see Mileti and Sorensen, 1990: Communication of emergency public warnings: a social science perspective and state-of-the-art assessment). No amount of denial will alter that fact.

Further, as I have made abundantly clear, I have only the utmost respect for our private sector members. Just as within the NWS, there are many very skilled meteorologists within the private sector. But Mr. Myers states that with equal tools, information, and training, "unencumbered by government procedure and policy, a forecaster in a commercial weather company or in the media may be more accurate or more timely or both, in a perilous situation."

Training cannot be said to be equal. The NWS has a rigorous training program for its meteorologists through the Cooperative Program for Meteorology, Education, and Training (COMET) in Boulder, CO and the Warning Decision Training Branch (WDTB) in Norman, OK. (In fact, I have written about the WDTB and the excellence of their unique training program given predominantly to NWS meteorologists.) Additionally, much of the cutting edge research results of the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) are transferred directly and frequently to NWS severe storms training programs. (Obviously, the training seminar I teach to the private sector meteorologists is designed to transfer as much of this information to those in attendance as possible within the two-day seminars. Unfortunately, few choose to take this training. Other private sector companies are also trying to offset this training inequity, but again, few can take their training.) We can probably conclude that raw skill levels are essentially equal when comparing private and public sector meteorologists but with the superiority of NWS training, the ground cannot be said to be level when applied skill levels are considered.

Tools cannot be said to be equal. While selected WSR-88D data and products are provided to the private sector, those data do not include the full volume of base data in its highest resolution, as is available to the NWS. Moreover, the NWS does not experience the delay in seeing WSR-88D data, as does the private sector. (It is a popular misconception that the NWS receives and acts on 6- to 10-minute old NEXRAD data.) While steadily improving software and C-band radars are being sold to the media, these are too few and typically the radars are not operated in volume scanning modes nor around-the-clock. C-band radars are also more susceptible to certain limitations as well. Other tools such as AWIPS, a workstation for integrating and interrogating various meteorological data sets are also available to the NWS and not the private sector. With these inequities in training and tools, the information available cannot be said to be equal. One more item in response to that paragraph within Mr. Myers' letter; I am unaware of significantly "encumbering" government policies and procedures, but some may exist. The only policy I've seen from the NWS is that forecasters are to issue a warning when a storm appears severe and threatens life or property. This policy is not "encumbering".

Relative to the public's ability to examine televised radar data and evaluate that with accuracy or to correctly weigh differing professional opinions in a few seconds or minutes, it is difficult to see how that statement can be defended. Mr. Myers even states that all it takes is common sense to interpret radar data and to evaluate differing professional opinions!! Nothing special is needed, he suggests! In my opinion, this idea is indefensible! Considering how difficult it has been and continues to be to get the general public to understand the meaning of "Watch" and "Warning", how is it possible that they can correctly interpret a radar reflectivity display (let alone velocity) or correctly weigh differing professional opinions in order to determine the threat to themselves. If it were that simple, there would be no differing professional opinions at all. Furthermore, a significant portion of the populous are confused about their own geographic location on any map. How then can they determine the need to take shelter unless given clear instruction in the least confusing fashion and by the fewest competing voices? Consider the matter of the needed rapid public response to warnings in light of the average lead-time for those warnings. Currently, the average lead-time for tornado warnings is ~ 10 minutes. It is difficult to understand that if in times of severe storms there is inadequate time for coordination between a media meteorologist and the local NWS office, how can it be said that the public has adequate time and skill to search for and weigh differences in advice and determine which is the correct action to take. This would seem to attribute to the viewing audience a speed and skill beyond that of most professionals or experts. Additionally, simply consider the above arguments concerning tools, training, and information. Finally, Don Burgess of NSSL and I have spent 33 years in the business of radar development, severe storms radar applications research, and training. Even then there are cases and data we disagree over and evaluate differently. How then can it be said that the public can evaluate radar data when it comes to severe storms and the threat they pose when experienced scientists can't always agree?

Mr. Myers suggests that my letter and NWS governmental policies are an attempt to silence the media and private sector. Within this context, nothing can be farther from the truth! The basis of this recommendation is to place this crucial responsibility into the hands of those who are most capable by virtue of education, tools, training, and data. Please don't misunderstand. This statement in no way is an attack on or an effort to denigrate the media or private sector meteorologists. They are some of the most skilled and professional people in the business. But in order to avoid confusion and the very real threat of inaction by a confused public, the sole responsibility must be placed in someone's hands for the betterment of the public. After all, this is done everyday. One man or woman at a time, making all the critical decisions, pilots a commercial aircraft at a time, one local agency and office is given the responsibility of enforcing our community laws, one local office alone is given the responsibility of fighting local fires, etc. Should we argue that in each of these examples the public's rights are being assailed, that their freedom of speech or action is taken away? Hardly. Similarly, one local office, one local agency, is given the responsibility to issue weather watches and warnings. The "Buck stops here"! Of course, we are all free to criticize and to even attempt to do things on our own, but primary responsibility is placed in the hands of those who are hopefully best equipped, trained, and prepared. Once again, there is no effort to strip the rights of the people, any people, or private enterprise. No attempt is made directly to keep the private sector from "providing comments and advice on public issued warnings and forecasts." You are free to do so. But I would hope that the profit motive would not come before the welfare of the people, as it doesn't for the vast majority of the private sector. However, I have personally seen a television meteorologist disagree with an NWS tornado warning, telling his audience that there was little threat of a tornado with a particular storm. He was saying this just as five people were dying after they were swept up into a tornado spawn by that very same storm at that very time! I recognize that there are times of professional disagreement concerning a threat. Mr. Myers contends that the public needs to have access to all these opinions in order to receive the most accurate guidance. However, he implies that providing several opinions at a critical time would guarantee that. I would argue that the "accuracy" of the additional input is only to be determined after the fact and not assessed in real-time by an untrained public. Note that there is a difference between being untrained and not having "the basic intelligence" to decide. Keep in mind that in my letter I suggested ways in which a media weathercaster could convey a threat without using the "W" word, without "issuing" a warning.

I was not suggesting the inundation of the NWS with calls. I hope the times when a call would be necessary would be few and far between. They should be. I must admit, however, I was not thinking of nationally based companies who have not established a friendship with the local office MIC and other local NWS personnel. But at times of quiescent weather, in my opinion, a personal/professional relationship could also be established even by a national operation. Mr. Myers suggests that at times a disagreement would persist and someone must act. Of course, that is the case but the NWS will act, either by issuing or not issuing a warning. AccuWeather is also free to act but I hope in concert with the NWS for the sake of the lives at stake.

Discussion on this topic could (and likely should) continue indefinitely. Perhaps opinions will change, and perhaps not. Regardless all will become better informed. In closing, I know we all hope that the public's well-being is first and foremost served by the actions of all involved. I don't want to see the public put in the position of having to evaluate radar displays or attempt to evaluate conflicting "warnings" or "watches" issued by conflicting organizations. Clearly, they are unable to do either by simply using common sense. We all wish it were that simple.

Having said that, the NWA is a "big tent" and capable of not only holding but also embracing a variety of personal and professional ideas and concepts. I welcome Barry Myers' letter and his critical view and even his disagreement with what I write. Iron sharpens iron; differing ideas by the men and women of the NWA, sharpen and broaden one another. I thank Barry Myers and all others who take the time and effort to make their voices heard. Indeed, we educate and teach each other through this invaluable interchange of ideas!

So really there is a little difference. meteorology is a training for four years of college.