Message Board

Roles and Responsibilities

dchilderbrand — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:12:36 GMT

Line 769: replace "Section 5" with "Section 4"

Line 778: I would also include NWA after AMS reference.

Lines 781-782: Conflicting statements..."distince delineations difficult" yet..."there are distinct roles" later in the sentence.

Lines 813-815: Reword sentence to "The Government should provide easily accessible information..." change passive to active tense.

Line 821: This refers now to "Federal" government...while the rest of the time it is just "the Government" ???

Lines 881-883: As written...I don't think it is a complete sentence. I would also remove the word "somewhat"...has no value.

Forum: ACUF

Vision and Strategic Goals

dchilderbrand — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:04:23 GMT

Line 589: change bullet to "Maximize national airspace, marine, and surface transportation efficiency" ...or...add extra bullet to include surface and marine transportation.

Line 593: possibly add a climate and/or agriculture bullet

Line 608 (consistency needed throughout document)...should refer to "postprocessing" without space or hyphen.

Line 609: remove hyphen for "highly reliable" and clarification needed exactly what "specifically-resolved" means??

Line 685: delete "based"...should be just "probabilistic products"

Line 690: change to "hurricane forecast tracks (cone of uncertainty)"

Line 701: success criterion needs work..."range of data"??? maybe replace with "comprehensive suite of data..."

Line 702: "uniformly reliable"...again...what is the difference between reliable and uniformly reliable?

Line 702: "as specific as"...what does this mean...spatial resolution? temporal resolution? something else?

Line 709: replace "increase commerce, and improve public well being" with "improve commerce and enhance public well being"

General comment on Stategic Goal #3...no mention of social science here...which I think should be a major thrust in this section...it isn't just education.

Line 708-716: recommend rethinking this paragraph...

Line 744: mention after "computationally intensive endeavor" that this is why the Fed. government needs to take the lead on infrastructure...academia and private sector can't sustain such infrastructure

Forum: ACUF

Section 2 Overview

dchilderbrand — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:24:12 GMT

line 307...remove "the" after "have"

line 315...replace "think" with "e.g.,"

line 349 Table 1...Protecting Life and Property row...envisioned forecast information column...probability is misspelled. In last column..."loses" should be "losses"

Table 1 continued...Improving National Airspace Efficiency...last column could be "$M fuel cost savings"

line 378 and 379...rephrase the benefits to positives...instead of negatives. For instance...change 250 deaths to # lives saved...and # property damage avoided.

recommend keeping an "Enhanced Public Well Being" example...examples given in my general comments post.

Forum: ACUF

Purpose and Introduction

dchilderbrand — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:12:14 GMT

line 179...remove comma after means

line 180...should "butterfly effect" be in quotations?

line 204 and 206...since the publications were in 2006 and 2008...shouldn't verbs be in past tense...specifically "concluded" and "recommended"

line 212..."form" should be "from"

lines 256-258 Box 2...25 of 50 (50%) of ensemble members were predicting it...I don't think that 50% is correct...looks to me like 12 of the 50 ensemble members were close to the verified forecast. ~25%

Forum: ACUF

8. Appendices

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:43:25 GMT

Please provide comments or additional information on the appendices.

Forum: ACUF

7. Priorities and Monitoring Progress

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:42:23 GMT

Please provide comments on priorities and monitoring progress.

Forum: ACUF

6. Scenarios

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:41:34 GMT

Please provide comments on existing scenarios and/or submit scenarios in the format used within the ACUF draft.

Forum: ACUF

5. Strategic Goal 4 and Objectives

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:39:56 GMT

Please provide comments and expertise on Strategic Goal 4 and its Objectives.

Forum: ACUF

4. Strategic Goal 3 and Objectives

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:39:10 GMT

Please provide comments and expertise on Strategic Goal 3 and its Objectives.

Forum: ACUF

3. Strategic Goal 2 and Objectives

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:38:21 GMT

Please provide comments and expertise as they relate to Strategic Goal 2 and its Objectives.

Forum: ACUF

2. Strategic Goal 1 and Objectives

ableistein — Thur, 06 Aug 2009 18:37:32 GMT

Please provide comments and expertise as they relate to Strategic Goal 1 and its Objectives.

Forum: ACUF

1. ACUF Draft Plan Review - General Comments

ableistein — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:25:42 GMT

Please provide overarching comments regarding the flow and organization of the ACUF Draft Report as appropriate.

Forum: ACUF

2008-05-01: Call for 2008 APT Nominations

gary — Thur, 01 May 2008 17:07:54 GMT

This post describes the 2008 AMS call for annual partnership topic nominations. Appended at the end of this post is a blank APT Nomination Form.

2008 Call for AMS Annual Partnership Topic Nominations

The primary purpose of the AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise (CWCE) Board on Enterprise Planning (BEP) is to review issues of a long-term strategic nature with importance to the weather and climate community as a whole. BEP will select one issue, called the Annual Partnership Topic (APT), each year from nominations submitted by members of our community. Nominations are encouraged from all community sectors: academic, government, private, and end user. BEP will evaluate each APT nomination using the evaluation criteria contained in the APT Nomination Form below. All community members may comment on any APT nomination.

Two previously selected APTs are in currently in process: one on Hurricanes Disasters (now near completion) and one on Mesonets.

New APT nominations are being accepted through 31 May 2008. Please refer to the APT Nomination Form below and follow its instructions to submit an APT nomination or a comment on a nomination.

Thank you for your support and interest. If you have any questions, please contact the members of the BEP by sending email to amsbep@ametsoc.org.

Regards,

Tim Spangler

Dr. Tim Spangler

Chair, Board on Enterprise Planning

AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise

tspang@ucar.edu

303-497-8473

----------------

Annual Partnership Topic Nominations and Comments

To submit a nomination please copy the APT form below, fill in the requested information, and post the completed APT Nomination Form to the CWCE message board as a reply to this post.

As APT nominations are added to this thread, you may comment on them in the same way, by posting your comment to the CWCE message board as a reply to this post.

Note: In order to post either a comment or a nomination you must be a registered member of the CWCE message board. When registering, you must supply your full name, as the message board moderator will reject anonymous registration requests.

The CWCE message board is located at:

http://amsforums.ametsoc.org/tool/mb/amscwceforum

This post is within the "APTs and Enterprise Commission News" forum.

----- APT Nomination Form ---

Nominators Name:

Nominators Affiliation :

Nominators Address:

Nominators Telephone number(s):

APT Short Title:

APT Brief Description :

Please address the following questions in relation to the APT Selection Criteria :

1. Timeliness: Do you expect the results of the AMS annual partnership topic activities will be relevant to the weather and climate enterprise in 2 years and beyond?

2. Breadth:

a. Is the topic of concern to many private sector, academic, and government organizations of various kinds ?

b. Is the topic of concern to scientific, technological, policy, legal, and economic interests of various kinds ?

c. Is the topic of broad interest to many kinds of government agencies (federal, state, local), many kinds of private sector organizations (both users and providers of weather and climate information) and many kinds of academic / research institutions?

3. Impact: What is the impact the proposed APT is expected to have on the weather and climate enterprise and on society as a whole? Please describe the impacts in tangible terms (e.g. the fraction of the U.S. and/or global economy affected) and/or intangible terms (e.g. potential legal and institutional effects).

4. Interest: What is your estimate of the likelihood of success in forming a committee, with members from all four enterprise sectors, to study the APT and in gaining multiple contributors to the topic?

5. Linkage: Does the APT have potential linkage to other planned activities? For example, a topic which is related to a planned activity by an organization other than AMS (e.g. the World Meteorological Organization)?

----- End of APT Nomination Form ---

Forum: Annual Partnership Topics (APTs)

Background Posts

ableistein — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:30:15 GMT

I have taken all of your individual posts on your backgrounds and consolidated them into one post. Please reply to this post if you would like to add yours.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Tom Hamill:

For those of you who don't know me already, I'm a researcher at NOAA Earth System Research Lab (Boulder, CO) concentrating of late on ensemble forecasting and probabilistic forecast verification. A full CV with links to papers can be found at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/tom.hamill/cv.html. I'm also a member of the AMS Probability and Statistics committee and starting Fall 2007 will be an Editor at Monthly Weather Review.

My primary interest in getting involved in the ACUF is provide knowledge on the cutting-edge research in probabilistic weather and climate forecasting. I hope we can intelligently map out a plan that looks forward realistically 5 to 10 years. I think it's possible to drift off to either side of the road in steering a path toward uncertainty forecasting. I've seen plans that were too much incrementalist, unable to get out of the rut of seeing the future as minor revisions of the current status quo. I have also seen plans that got off track by promising too much, sky-pie plans that are not scientifically deliverable given the chaotic nature of the atmosphere (e.g., we can not promise to make a 3-week probabilistic forecast as good in 10 years as today's 3-day probabilistic forecast).

So, I hope to play a positive role in helping keep us on track toward what will be realistic and yet forward-looking. My background will probably make me most helpful in (p.3, white paper) the part on describing what is neeeded to meet the goals and research vision) and the implementation roadmap.

I think the white paper is a reasonable start on things (congrats, Paul and Elliot). I'll communicate some wordsmithy comments to Paul in a private e-mail. __________________________________________________ ______________

My name is Dan Bickford, and I have been the morning/noon meteorologist at WSPA-TV in the Greenville, SC/Spartanburg, SC/Asheville, NC market for the past 6+ years.

In addition to the duties of this office, I have also tried to keep a hand in local emergency management efforts. At my previous address in Joplin, MO, I was a member of the Four Corners Emergency Management group, covering the area surrounding the borders of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Most recently, I have been involved in weather training for emergency responders in Spartanburg.

I have been heavily involved with our local Upstate AMS chapter, and have had a desire to get more involved in some meteorological arenas outside of the confines of my "normal" duties. That factor, in concert with my ingrained interest in the communication of weather information to others, compelled me to sign up!

I am most interested in the "hows" of communicating forecast uncertainty to the "end users". In all cases, the user is going to want something specific...running the gamut from "is the river going to crest this afternoon and are evacuations necessary?" to "will it rain on my garage sale between 7 am and 11 am this Saturday?". The challenge is to be able to express that forecast, and the inherent uncertainties within, in such a manner that anyone can understand it. If we provide uncertainty information but can not communicate it effectively, we are really not doing a service to anyone...and may actually be harming the effort to some degree.

I believe we already have kind of an active case study in that realm: probably the most well-known measure of uncertainty in a forecast is the PoP. Personal experience has shown me that fewer people than one might hope truly understand what that value signifies. What is not helping is that I've seen more than a couple of broadcast meteorologists misrepresent that statistic. This shows the type of hill we must climb to have a truly effective effort.

The white paper seems to be a great road map forward...we will see if we have to add any new features to our "atlas" along the way...

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dan Satterfield:

I am the Chief Met. at the CBS afilliate in Huntsville Al. Just finished a Masters in Earth Sci. and am an Okla. U. Met. grad.

Have been experimenting with communicating forecast uncertainty over the last year or so. With the demand for 7, and 10 day forecasts, this has become an even more important issue. Certainly one the public does not understand, if the number of requests I get for forecasts two weeks in advance is any indication.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dr. Charles A. Doswell:

My interest in this topic has its origins in my long-time connection to weather forecasting and to my experiences with Alan Murphy. As a forecaster, I've had personal experience with forecast uncertainty, but in my early days, I had the naive notion that probability was a cop-out and that with enough time, determinism would prevail. Over time, however, those notions came to be dispelled by experience. Meeting Alan Murphy and discussing subjective probability estimation with him convinced me that it was not only useful to express uncertainty but also possible for humans to do so with some success (given training and calibration). Understanding the implications of Lorenz' pioneering paper on the forecasting implications of nonlinear dynamics convinced me that determinism is dead! But it continues to hang around, like some sort of zombie.

I now am a firm believer that expression of uncertainty is the only way to go and that it's not going to go away with any foreseeable advances in physical understanding. Introducing uncertainty information in forecasts also raises the possibility of producing unbiased forecasts - dichotomous forecasting encourages biases associated with the perceived penalties for forecast errors. If the perceived penalties are asymmetric, this implicitly encourages a biased product. This is especially obvious when forecasting severe local storms, but certainly applies elsewhere.

I also believe, like Alan did, that the public is capable of using probabilistic forecast information even if they don't understand abstract probability theory. It's always possible to "dumb down" a forecast product that includes probabilstic informantion, but if you remove it in the final product to please the lowest common denominator, the resulting product cannot be used to reconstruct the uncertainty information. More sophisticated users are the losers.

My big concern is that if we make probabilistic forecasting a goal, and I believe we should, the challenge is to implement it in such a way that it is as effective as possible. I believe we have a long way to go to understand how best to develop and introduce probabilistic forecasts across the total spectrum of forecast products. I think the introduction of Probability of Precipitation in the mid-1960s was done badly and we are still paying for the mistakes made at that time. I hope we won't repeat them as we move forward to implementing probabilistic forecasting acroos the board.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dave Myrick

I'm a meteorologist at NWS Western Region Headquarters/Scientific Services Division in Salt Lake City. I started working full-time with the NWS 1 year ago after completing my Ph.D. from the Univ. of Utah.

I am interested in finding ways to use uncertainty information in the verification of grid-based forecasts. Specifically, how can we use an objective analysis (with known errors in data sparse locations) to verify a forecast grid? I am currently investigating ways to use estimates of analysis uncertainty from the Real-Time Mesoscale Analysis in the verification of forecast grids.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Jun Du:

(1) As a developer of NCEP regional ensemble prediction system (SREF), I am interested in knowing what

kind of uncertainty information users may need and then developing new ensemble products to incorporate

those uncertainty information in a form users can easily understand and use.

(2) The White Paper is a good start. May need to keep emphasizing smooth communication between ensemble system and product

developers and users.

(3) I can focus on probabilistic product development, verification and interpretation to users.

(4) Could be served in forecasters and users training of ensemble forecasting.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Elliot Abrams:

This is an exciting project. For me as a co-chair, I feel responsible for working to draw out your best ideas and help the group facilitate discussion and refinement of concepts and ideas. I want to share a few thoughts on probability forecasting for broadcast and the internet. A key challenge is how to express the wide range of knowledge we have about the upcoming weather in probabilistic terms the audience will understand.

I don't think we should underestimate what people can handle. After all, in baseball, batting averages are taken to three decimal places, and all kinds of stats have been developed about pitching, fielding and hitting. Yet, in our broadcast forecasts, we may use only one probability, and all it gives us is the likelihood of a hundredth of an inch of rain falling in the "official" raingage in a 12 hour period. That value tells nothing about how much it will rain or how long. And, in both of those considerations, there is a spectrum of possibilities. If we had time, we might expand 50% chance of rain to: there's a 50-50 chance of getting enough rain to wet the ground. There's a 1 in 5 chance of getting a tenth of an inch of rain but virtually no chance of getting more than a quarter-inch. If it rains where you are, there's less than a 1 in 10 chance it will last more than a half-hour. More than 95% of the day will be rain-free.

I have tried that type of forecast in some of my long form radio forecasts, so I have been spared the glazed stares of the listeners. But seriously, how should we do this? How can our science spur improvements? How do we insure the message is received accurately and acted upon appropriately? Our large group ranges from people who simply want to do a better job in expressing probabilities in every day forecasts to consultants who steer multi-million dollar decisions in the energy markets to some of the greatest minds in probability and statistics.

Paul and I need to break the large group into a number of working groups, and we want to do this to best match your skills and interests. That's why we urge you to enter a post with your background, expertise and interest. And please, if you think we are heading down the wrong road on this project at any time, please let us know.

A little more on me: I have been at AccuWeather for 40 years, starting when there were just two people in the office to now having 325 colleagues. My title is Sr Vice President; the bulk of my work is in operational forecasting and broadcasting. I prepare and broadcast forecasts and commentaries for more than a dozen radio stations from Chicago to New York City and from High Point NC to Portland ME. I went as far as the M.S degree in meteorology at Penn State, then later was named an AMS Fellow and currently serve on the AMS Board of Certified Consulting Meteorologists. I am finishing out my fourth six-year term as an elected local government official. I write a daily weather commentary that appears on the accuweather.com site and write brief articles on some of the new climate research I see in the weekly copies of Science, Nature and EOS (from the American Geophysical Union...AGU).

That's more than enough from me. What about YOU?

__________________________________________________ ______________

Lee Anderson:

During my NWS career, as field office forecaster and manager, my interest developed in the way forecasters' and hydrologists' communicates products and uncertainty information to users. My interest in this topic increased during my work as one of the NOAA HQ representatives with the National Research Council and NOAA OAR, for the study on communicating uncertainty in weather and climate forecasts. I am especially interested in the communication of uncertainty information in meteorological and hydrological products, and how customers can enhance their use of this information. I am a program lead at NWS Office of Science and Technology working on the Real-Time Mesoscale Analysis (RTMA) project and NWS forecast uncertainty related projects.

I am looking forward to working with the committee on developing a vision and plan on forecast uncertainty for the Weather-Climate Enterprise. In addition, I am interested in helping with efforts to educate the public about this subject. I hope to provide valuable input to ensure this project is successful. I will provide comments on the white paper in the near future.

__________________________________________________ ______________

John Gaynor:

I work in the research line office of NOAA. I have been one of the leaders in the NOAA Weather and Water Strategic Goal in working toward the establishment of an organized and coordinated infrastructure for social science research aligned to NOAA's weather mission. I led the establishment of and fund the Societal Impacts Program at NCAR. Among other activities, it is beginning studies of the public perception and understanding of uncertainty in weather forecast information. I am also working on budget planning under the Weather and Water Strategic Goal to establish funding in NOAA for the societal aspects of the communication of uncertainty. I am working with NSF to create a joint competition to research the communication of uncertainty of hurricane forecasts and warnings in order to improve NOAA's hurricane forecast products. Each of these activities require close interaction and coordination with NOAA's partners in all sectors. ACUF can be a forum for these interactions or at least provide the plans to establish these interactions.

__________________________________________________ ______________

I'm Paul Schultz, employed in Boulder at the NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Systems Division. GSD used to be the Forecast Systems Laboratory, which was heavily involved in conceiving, designing, and prototyping AWIPS. I was in on that before the acronym even existed.

You probably know that AWIPS is in the process of getting completely re-engineered and re-implemented (by Raytheon). You probably also know that AWIPS as it exists today doesn't provide much in the way of tools or datasets to help a forecaster with the task of issuing probabilistic forecasts, much less well-calibrated probabilistic forecasts. The re-engineering of AWIPS/NAWIPS offers an opportunity to infuse great tools for this purpose, and to integrate them smoothly and completely into the process. We think we have a workable vision for the transition of NWS operations to a new era of probabilistic prediction services, or at least some of the important parts of the problem. It hasn't been blessed by the NWS or anybody else besides my wife and about 150 co-workers, but it's just about ready to present, promote, debate, revise, and advance. This committee is a terrific opportunity for us to get feedback from potential users and collaborators.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Eddie Holmes:

I want to say I am humbled to be a part of such a pristine group of individuals on such an important work. I am the meteorologist for Grace Broadcasting Systems which operates six commercial radio stations scattered through West and Middle Tennessee. I own and operate West Tennessee Weather Online, http://www.jacksonweather.net. I have about 20 years of experience in commercial radio broadcast meteorology and 6 years of commercial television broadcast meteorology. Moreover, I am involved with our local emergency management during severe weather events.

Forecast preparation, interaction with the public and severe weather episodes in West Tennessee over the last seven years has really raised my awareness of the need to effectively communicate forecast uncertainty.

I appreciate NWS forecasters candidly expressing their uncertainty in terms of confidence in a particular aspect of their forecastsubtly giving us an uncertainty scale of low-moderate-high confidence.

I am of the opinion that the white paper is a good foundation on which to build this work. I would like to be involved in the focus of communicating forecast uncertainty in the television and radio media. Plus, since I operate my own weather web site, I hope I can focus on the graphic expression of forecast uncertainty. I trust that this experience will enrich my own professional meteorology and broadcast skills, but more importantly is of tremendous benefit to the end-users.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Neil A. Stuart:

I look forward to working with you and am honored to be part of the committee. I plan on learning from everyone at least as much as I plan to provide my perspective on communicating uncertainty. The white paper looks like a reasonable blueprint to follow. Of course the details of dividing into smaller working groups with more focused areas of research will be a challenge.

My interest in communicating uncertainty originated from many sources, so I won't go into detail. In summary, my work on the AMS WAF Committee, AMS Board for Operational Meteorologists, some of the conference sessions I helped coordinate on the future role of the human in the forecast process and the public/private sector partnership, and most recently my association with the WAS*IS group, continue to feed my interest in improved communication of weather information to all user groups.

As an operational forecaster at NWS Albany, NY, and my previous experience at NWS Wakefield, VA, I have witnessed many situations when users misunderstood or misinterpreted forecasts I and my colleagues issued. These frustrating experiences support what Cliff Mass said several years ago, "The difference in what meteorologists know and what users know, has never been so great", and this "divide" continues, even with the increasing sources of experimental probabilistic guidance and forecast confidence information available from many sources.

Improving communication, especially uncertainty, could result not only in improved user response, but a new, very important role of the human in an increasingly automated forecast process. Scientists by nature do not communicate complex information to users effectively, and media has mixed success in communicating complex scientific information. We must convey information in terms we as scientists may have never considered, so users can best understand the information we present to them. I also look forward to in-depth discussions on the psychology of decision-making, not only for operational forecasters, but users, which hopefully will help guide us toward optimizing the characteristics of guidance on uncertainty that will serve the broadest cross-section of the user community, including those most vulnerable to natural hazards.

I have connected with Dr. Thomas Stewart here at SUNY Albany, and Gary Klein of Klein and Associates, both experts at the cognitive psychological aspects of human decision-making, including within the operational weather forecasting/warning environment, and some analysis of users of weather information. I hope to occasionally request guidance from them through our process.

Again, I am honored to be a part of such a distinguished group, and look forward to contributing and learning from everyone.

__________________________________________________ ______________

David Bright:

(1) Background:

My background in forecasting uncertainty includes several years in operational weather forecasting, science operations, and techniques development for the National Weather Service. I've worked at several NWS offices since 1990 including Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Tucson, and presently the Storm Prediction Center (Norman, OK). I consider myself a long-time user of ensemble guidance and very interested in ensemble applications for forecasters, ensemble post-processing, and conveying better confidence or uncertainty information to our users to enhance decision support.

(2) Comments on the White Paper (WP):

Page 2, line 17: The WP states, "...most current forecast products and services are based on single, deterministic predictions with no accompanying forecast uncertainty information." Most forecasts are not based on a single deterministic forecast. Although not at an optimal level, many forecasters are already using ensemble guidance in the construction of their forecast products. Additionally, the "poor man's ensemble" is widely used as essentially all forecasters look in detail at several deterministic NWP solutions including the WRFs, GFS, RUC, NOGAPS, ECMWF, CMS, etc. And while the WP acknowledges "notable exceptions," I think we're downplaying the fact that many critical forecasts already include accompanying uncertainty information. For example, the TPC issues plume forecasts for the path of tropical systems as well as other probabilistic forecasts. Just about every forecast product issued by the SPC, even watches, include accompanying probabilistic information that helps to further refine the threat. However, I suspect this uncertainty information is not used to its full extent.

Page 2, line 20: The WP states, "decisions by users are generated largely without the benefit of knowing and accounting for the inherent uncertainties of the forecast upon which they rely." I think most users understand that uncertainty exists in the forecast and make decisions accordingly (based on the information they have). However, the NWS is not necessarily helping these users optimize their decision management process by issuing mostly deterministic NDFD forecasts.

Page 2, line 25 & 26: I think the largest issue moving forward is in the last sentence of the second paragraph that states, "leverage partner capabilities and ensure optimum comprehension by users and customers." I think forecasters are already quite good at assessing uncertainty through the poor man's approach, and will become even better as more useful and refined ensemble guidance makes its way into mainstream operational systems. The biggest challenge, in my opinion, will be ensuring forecasters and users are reliably accounting for the uncertainty, and the proper tools and training for decision support are implemented. This will involve a considerable amount of training for both forecasters and users, and will be a more challenging problem that just issuing more probabilistic forecasts.

Page 5, Proposed Work plan:

Should the Stakeholders be brought into the process sooner? In order to identify a vision that characterizes and communicates forecast uncertainty, should we get the input of users of uncertainty information prior to a draft implementation plan?

(3) Focus:

I'd like to focus on aspects involving the operational forecast process, operational deliverables, and interaction with users and user-based decision support tools.

(4) From this Experience:

I hope to gain a better understanding of the forecaster/user interaction and decision support in the era of enhanced uncertainty, probabilistic forecasts, etc

__________________________________________________ ______________

Ross Hoffman:

1. I've been interested in forecasting uncertainty for a long time, having read the papers of Ed Epstein as a graduate student.

As a postdoc working with Eugenia Kalnay, we developed the Lagged Average Forecasting (LAF) concept.

Most of my career has been about data assimilation, which is all about balancing different sources of uncertainty.

Currently working with Eugenia again, with the LETKF group, on data assimilation for the ocean and soon Mars.

At AER we run a specialized ensemble forecast system, adapting the ECMWF forecast ensemble for our commercial customers.

I have also developed an approach to characterizing errors (or uncertainty) in terms of phase and amplitude errors.

We call this Feature Calibration and Adjustment (FCA).

I think this sort of approach will prove useful for quantifying and displaying weather uncertainty.

Finally, we've done some research on hurricane modification.

An outgrowth of this is the idea of exigent forecasting---what is the most extreme plausible forecast.

2. I'm most interested in the reliability of ensembles to forecast uncertainty; techniques to communicate uncertainty; and methods to validate forecasts of uncertainty.

3. I'm looking forward to interesting exchange of ideas leading to better public understanding of weather forecasts.

I hope to learn about the lay public understanding of weather uncertainty and how to measure this.

4. Publications on topics mentioned in (1):

R. N. Hoffman and E. Kalnay. Lagged average forecasting, an alternative to Monte Carlo forecasting. Tellus, 35A:100118, 1983.

T. Nehrkorn, R. N. Hoffman, C. Grassotti, and J.-F. Louis. Feature calibration and alignment to represent model forecast errors: Empirical regularization. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 129(587):195218, Jan. (Part A) 2003.

J. M. Henderson, R. N. Hoffman, S. M. Leidner, T. Nehrkorn, and C. Grassotti. A 4D-VAR study on the potential of weather control and exigent weather forecasting. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 131, Oct. (Part B), 131, 3037-3052, 2005.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dan Stillman:

I'm the executive editor and lead meteorologist for CapitalWeather.com, a science communications manager at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, and a participant in the Summer 2007 Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (WAS*IS).

CapitalWeather.com is a blog-style weather website for the Washington DC area. I help lead a team of contributors in the effective communication of forecast information to the general public. The website serves as a testbed for innovative tools that help express forecast uncertainty, such as the confidence graphics that appear with all of our forecasts.

I'm excited to be part of this group and the White Paper seems to be an impressive start. I'm particularly interested in:

*Subjective verification of typical model and human forecast errors -- As a community, I don't think meteorologists spend enough time on verification, and those efforts that do exist are mostly of the objective kind. A lot can be learned from routine subjective verification -- for example, comparing radar with a model's surface precipitation forecast from a couple to several days earlier -- and the results of such verification can be used to inform future calculation and communication of uncertainty.

*NRC Recommendation 3.0 -- "All sectors and professional organizations of the Enterprise should cooperate in educational initiatives that will improve communication and use of uncertainty information" ... and "forecast providers should help users, especially members of the public, understand the value of uncertainty information"

*NRC Recommendation 6.0 -- "Archival verification information on probabilistic forecasts, including model-generated and objectively generated forecasts and verifying observations, should be accessible so users can produce their own evaluation of the forecasts" ... and NRC Recommendation 3.15, "Verification information should be kept up to date and be easily accessible through the Web" ... Numerical and graphical output from models (NCEP GFS and WRF, for example) disappears too quickly for the average meteorologist (one who doesn't have the time or resources to plot archived gridded data) to go back and assess model accuracy and his or her own interpretation of the models, both of which should be used to inform future communication of uncertainty.

*NRC Recommendation 2.1 -- "For users who have difficulty with numeric probabilities and prefer a less analytic approach, forecast uncertainty should be expressed using relative frequencies rather than probabilities" ... I'm especially interested in how to most effectively "dumb down" numerical probabilities and the like.

*NRC Recommendation 3.10 -- "The Climate Prediction Center should examine whether it is appropriate to distribute forecasts with little skill and whether projections should be limited to shorter time lengths. Information about prediction skill should be more readily available to users" ... I'm a big believer that the only way to improve long-range/seasonal forecasts is to keep issuing them regardless of skill (practice makes perfect), but that no such forecast should ever be issued or communicated to the public either directly or via the media without saying what the recent and historical skill is.

One general White Paper comment/question: Why limit the focus of this group to hydrometeorological forecasts? Why not include temperature too? Nothing misrepresents forecast uncertainty more than a deterministic, single-value temperature (as opposed to a range of possible temperatures) shown on day 7 of a 7-day forecast.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Julie Demuth:

I, too, look forward to working with everyone on this committee. In response to the questions that Paul and Elliot posed:

(1) My interests in forecast uncertainty began several years ago, first as I became aware the NRC was doing the forecast uncertainty report and then through several discussions during WAS*IS workshops. I began directly working in this area about a year and a half ago. A few colleagues (from NCAR and the University of Georgia) and I conducted a nationwide survey last fall to begin to explore peoples interpretation of and preferences for weather forecast uncertainty information. A few of the things we assessed in the survey are peoples: (a) inference of uncertainty into deterministic forecasts; (b) interpretation of probability of precipitation forecasts; (c) preferences for deterministic versus uncertainty-explicit forecast information; and (d) preferences for uncertainty communication formats. Weve analyzed the data and have some interesting findings, but this work has also generated several new research questions.

(2) I have a few initial comments on the white paper.

(2a) Everything discussed in the white paper refers to the Weather and Climate Enterprise. However, many of these uncertainty issues are not just meteorological problems. The relevance of other disciplines (i.e., social and behavioral sciences) is mentioned repeatedly both in this white paper and in the NRC report, so how can we incorporate these other disciplines into the work of this committee?

(2b) The challenge under the Needs, Opportunities, and Benefits mentions gathering and documenting new needs. Im not sure if we (as the committee) are supposed to gather this information or if were to develop a research/work plan for doing this. Gathering and documenting new needs is an incredibly large task. As mentioned in the paper, there is a very large spectrum of users, each with varying needs. Moreover, users needs arent static; they evolve and change. So well have to think about how to get our heads around this one.

(2c) The challenge under Enterprise Vision and Goals mentions identifying a vision and goals based on what is cost-effective. Cost-effective to whom? To the Enterprise as a whole? To NOAA? To a private sector company? To the users?

(2d) Regarding the workplan, I think its great that well get to meet at the AMS annual meeting. Do we have a date and time set for that yet?

(3) Im most interested in the users of forecast uncertainty information, and by users I mean everyone, including the general public, public officials, the media, other specialized users, etc. For example, what uncertainty information do users need and want? How do they interpret it? How can we better communicate uncertainty information? Are all these questions situation-dependent?

(4) I am hoping to glean a couple key things from this experience. First of all, I think this is a great opportunity to connect with and learn from others who are enthusiastic about this topic. Secondly, I hope that this committee can help shape future research directions and ultimately policy decision.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dave Novak:

I am a meteorologist in the Scientific Services Division of the NOAA/NWS Eastern Region Headquarters, involved in coordinating training, professional development, data distribution, and technique development for the NWS Eastern Region. I also am actively involved in research on mesoscale processes.

I am most interested in improving the forecast process to address user needs for uncertainty information. As such I am interested in learning the wide variety of user needs, and how other forecast groups have addressed such needs in their forecast process. I also have interest in ensemble data development and distribution, and forecaster training.

I have no comments on the white paper.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Greg Fishel:

I have worked over 28 years as an operational meteorologist, 27 of them in television, and it is always a challenge to communicate uncertainty to the public without sounding like you have no idea what is transpiring. Because of the deterministic appearance of weather forecasts on television, the challenge for broadcast meteorologists will be to make that transformation to communicating uncertainty without making it appear like our science has taken a step backward. Truth be told, the certainty that is implied in some of our forecasts was never there, but due to overzealous promotions, some viewers thought otherwise. Honesty with ourselves and our viewers must be a priority moving forward. I would be particularly interested in helping to formulate products that would help those of us in the communications industry to better express confidence levels in our forecasts, both verbally and graphically. One element of our science that has changed for the better over the last 20 years is a willingness on the part of various sectors of our field to work together to better our understanding of the atmosphere, and more importantly, to translate that better understanding into better public service. The NWS/University Co-location effort is one of the best examples. This committee is yet another example, and I look forward to hearing all of the member's ideas and perspectives as we move forward!

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dick Westergard:

1) During my NWS career as an MIC and WCM I developed a concern for making forecasts more useful to non-meteorologists. From 1996 through 2002 I did COMET funded research with the Communication Department at SUNY Albany aimed at developing better ways to communicate weather information. (See our last report for COMET at: http://www.shadetreemeteorology.com/S9893883final.pdf

The corresponding (somewhat primitive) graphics are at:

http://www.shadetreemeteorology.com/figures.pdf

2) While the white paper seems focused on numerically probabilistic forecasts, I think that is only a part of the picture. The research I was involved in suggested that risk can also be expressed in terms of "most Likely" conditions bracketed by "less likely but possible conditions". We also found that communicating what to look for in the sky to indicate which way things are going during the day could also be useful.

3) I would like to focus on the committee's work to develop formats and or terminologies to best express weather uncertainties - in other words the communication (not communications) aspect.

4)I hope to contribute a communicator's viewpoint and help make the end product of the committee's work as useful to weather information consumers as possible.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Bernard Meisner:

I am currently the Chief of Science and Training for the NWS Southern Region. I am a CCM, and have worked in academia, in private practice and for the USDA Forest Service.

I am particularly interested in how operational forecasters will be able to effectively and efficiently incorporate uncertainty information in their forecasts, and how they will be best able to interact with our partners in interpreting the forecasts so those partners might make the best decisions. I also have a specific interest in the training that will be required for both current and future forecasters related to conveying uncertainty.

General comments:

In my humble opinion, it would be folly to assume a group of meteorologists, climatologists and hydrologists can accomplish more than outline a broad, general plan for providing uncertainty information in our forecasts. The AMS should collaborate with behavior scientists, sociologists, statisticians, decision makers, the general public, etc. to best determine how to provide uncertainty information that will be useful to the partners and customers of our national weather enterprise.

Similarly, I think the universities should revamp the traditional curriculum to include coursework on interpreting forecasts and conveying uncertainty information to those who use the forecasts. If you step on a university campus these days you are likely to meet students who are majoring in interdisciplinary programs such as physics/history, biology/computer science and the like. Should there be comparable interdisciplinary programs for students interested in meteorology and hydrology that will prepare them to interact with decision makers?

While there may be limited instances when forecasters can explicitly add quantitative uncertainty information to their products (see for example, the probabilistic quantitative precipitation forecasts experimentally being issued by WFO Tulsa http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/pqpf.htm, and the probabilistic convective outlooks issued by the Storm Prediction Center: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/). I think, in general, forecasters will have to rely on well-calibrated ensembles to provide quantitative estimates of uncertainty for most forecast parameters.

In many instances the output from the various ensembles would probably be best provided in terms of centrally processed probabilities of specific weather impacts (see, for example the Storm Prediction Centers Short-Range Ensemble guidance: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/sref/) rather than provide forecasters with the output from the individual ensemble runs.

In turn, the uncertainty information should probably be disseminated to users in a variety of formats in order to satisfy their specific needs. Various users will likely have different decision thresholds. The members of the weather enterprise should consider conveying the forecast uncertainty information in terms of the impacts (likelihood of snow/ice on the road; directional wind shifts that might cause an airport to change runways; level of heat indices that might require an electric utility to delay maintenance on generators or prevent them from disconnecting customers, etc.). Certainly the more sophisticated users should have interactive access to the probability density functions so they might be able to perhaps explore even multivariate probabilities, depending on their specific needs and decisions.

I would expect a long-term commitment on the part of the AMS in addressing this topic, which would extend far beyond the one year term of this ad hoc committee.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Barbara G. Brown:

Sorry for being slow to post my background information.

I am a Project Scientist in the Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) at NCAR. Currently I lead the Verification Group at RAL. We work on development of new verification tools and methods, including new ways of representing the long-term uncertainty in forecasts. I also am very interested in user applications of uncertainty and verification information, methods for forecasting uncertainty, and methods for evaluating probabilistic and ensemble forecasts.

As a member of the committee that prepared the NRC report, "Completing the Forecast," I am committed to helping to see that the recommendations in that report are successfully implemented. I view this AMS group as a critical step in making that happen.

I look forward to working with all of you, and to some exciting and interesting exchanges over the next few months.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Carlie Lawson:

With a degree background in communications and hazards/environmental planning, my main research interest is end-user understanding of, and reaction to, forecasts outlooks, especially as it pertains to drought and hurricanes. Specific applications of this include agricultural producers' decision making during drought events, and coastal residents' hurricane evacuation decision making, including how to design forecast and educational products to help overcome the issue of social capital as a liability in evacuation decision making. My secondary interest is in the re-development of existing drought indices, and heat wave indices (i.e. Dr. Laurence S. Kalkstein's recent work with the NWS) on a regional climatic scale to improve their applicability in determining onset, intensity, and end point, and the development of explanatory/educational products provided to the public in order to mitigate economic and health impacts. I am the owner of Natural Hazards Consulting. Recent projects have included municipal drought plans, and environmental and natural hazards education products. Very broadly, my research interests include drought, wildfires, hurricanes, organizational learning in hazard mitigation, risk communication, renewable energy, and the Internet as a hazards mitigation tool. I look forward to working with all of you!

__________________________________________________ ______________

Paul Nutter:

1) Background:

My background includes graduate research in ensemble forecasting (both applications and design), private sector (contracted) evaluation and transfer of forecast procedures into a unique public operational environment, and presently, undergraduate education empasizing weather forecasting and dynamics.

My initial quest to become a weather forecaster has evolved into a passion for discovering ways to improve the construction and delivery of weather forecasts. Rather than ignoring forecast uncertainty, we must embrace it as part of a complete process.

2) White Paper Comments

General: Excellent work. Now I understand what is meant by "Enterprise". We ALL have much work to accomplish. Indeed, while assessing the means and extent to which we can properly quantify physical, dynamical, and numerical uncertainty, we must simultaneously deliver a socially cognizant forecast product that remains useful to end users. Wow!

pg. 7, Recommendation 2.1: If we choose relative frequency over probability, we'll need a much better understanding of frequencies for (sub) mesoscale processes.

pg. 9, Recommendation 4.2: I disagree that the AFD should be written in "layperson English". As a sophisticated user, I gain by noting changes in forecaster confidence, and the factors that drive these changes, from one shift to another. For the "layperson", a forecast "synopsis", "overview", or "summary" could be written to include uncertainty statements. Alternatively, such statements should be included directly in the worded forecast.

3) Preferred Work Focus

I am well positioned to comment on curriculum aspects of preparing our undergraduate students (future forecasters) to deliver products involving statements about forecast uncertainty.

4) Expectations

I hope to gain a better idea of how to prepare my students to participate in "the Enterprise" in an era of explosively growing technological capability. I have always had a personal interest in forecast uncertainty ("Why can't 'they' get it right?") . Finally, I hope to meet a few new colleagues with whom I might one-day collaborate.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Rebecca Morss:

I am a research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. My PhD is in atmospheric science, and I have some research experience in ensemble forecasting and predictability. In addition, for the last 6 years or so, much of my research has focused on the use of weather forecast information. This includes work on communication of uncertainty and, more generally, how scientific uncertainty interacts with decision-making in various contexts. I've also studied how NWS forecasters communicate forecast information, including certainty/uncertainty.

I was on the NRC report panel and am committed to helping make that vision become a reality over the next 10+ years. The ACUF will be an excellent step towards making that happen, particularly with its cross-sector leadership and membership.

From this experience, I hope to help move the weather enterprise towards more effective provision of uncertainty forecast information and, given the ACUF's diverse membership, hear a variety of perspectives on how to do so. I also hope that the committee can build a more specific, concrete roadmap for how different components of the enterprise can and should move forward, and I hope to learn more about how I can contribute to this process through my research and other activities.

I look forward to working with everyone.

__________________________________________________ ______________

I'm Pat Hayes, currently in the DC metro area, doing meteorology support in an intriguing area. My team looks at the uncertainty in all scales and variables of weather, both observations and forecasts. The observed and forecast weather, with its uncertainty, is then used to predict the character of a weather-sensitive activity. The uncertainty of the weather, which determines a range of possible activity, is only recently being considered.

In this AMS program I am looking forward to working with you all to learn more about the best ways to observe, predict, and communicate the uncertainty of weather.

In our Subgroup #2 the one-line sentence says that our gang will describe enterprise goals for forecast uncertainty information, products, and services. From my twenty-plus years of experience using weather information to improve the understanding of the environments effect on man, I have a feeling for how uncertain our present science is. Working closely with the user of weather intelligence, in many forms, I understand what users would like to gain from having better weather intelligence. So I believe I can help this group specify some enterprise goals.

As I said, I am looking forward to working further on weather uncertainty, and to increase the accuracy of observation and forecast information we provide to users.

__________________________________________________ ______________

This is Yuejian Zhu from NCEP ensemble group. For last few years, my main responsibility is to develop global ensemble forecasting system, to develop best probabilistic forecast products.

Here is the news I'd like to share with you, Global ensemble forecast (NAEFS - Northern American Ensemble Forecast System) has successfully implemented to operation since 12UTC Dec. 4 2007. Followings are the lists: (or link to: http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/ens/ens_imp_news.html )

1) GFS bias correction

2) Combination of GFS & GEFS forecasts

3) Probabilistic NAEFS forecasts at 1*1 degree resolution

4) Downscaled NAEFS forecasts at 5km NDGD grid (CONUS only)

We are welcome any comments from all of you. And hope to see you in coming AMS annual meeting as well.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Dr. Betty Morrow:

I have retired from Florida International University (Professor Emeritus) and am now working part-time as a consulting sociologist focusing on social and behavioral research related to natural hazards and disasters. My specialty is qualitative research, including in-depth interviews, focus groups and fieldwork. (My CV can be viewed at http://www.bmorrow.com.)

Much of my research has to do with how end users receive and interpret NWS forecasts and messages. I am particularly interested in helping find appropriate ways to communicate forecast uncertainty to the general public, realizing that this is a complex issue.

I very much look forward to learning from this impressive group of professionals and hope that I am able to contribute to its mission.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Scott Sandgathe:

I am currently a research scientist and consultant at the University of Washington. For the past six years I have been working on an ONR-funded Multidisciplinary Research Initiative on visualizing uncertainty. Our team was comprised of statisticians, psychologists, meteorologists and software engineers. I have also been working on object-oriented forecast verification.

Recently, I have been acting as a consultant on a proposed joint NOAA/NWS, Navy and Air Force initiative to provide global probabilistic weather information. This initiative, currently named the National Unified Operational Prediction Capability or NUOPC, is intended to facilitate a joint global ensemble with some common probabilistic products. It will be announced at a Town Hall meeting at AMS in New Orleans. For those of you who feel that NWS is not behind probabilistic prediction, I think it is important for you to attend to understand what NWS (and DoD and FAA) are trying to accomplish in providing uncertainty information.

Previously, I was an ONR program manager and invested heavily in advancing our understanding of predictability and uncertainty, especially as it applies to ensembles. Although I am not a researcher in this area, I have tried to follow the advances.

I believe the greatest difficulty in providing uncertainty information is communicating it effectively to the user. In my operational forecasting experience, decisions were made based on a scenario, with back up plans based on alternative scenarios. It was never as simple as "do I need to take an umbrella" and frequently involved very complex joint probabilities. Our research at UW has indicated that even the meteorological community frequently doesn't understand probabilistic information. I think both of these points have been noted previously by others, but I would like to make my biases known.

We have opportunities to provide joint probability information to sophisticated decision makers; however, the general public is more problematic. We really need to understand the complexity of the decision making process, even for the unsophisticated user, and tailor our products accordingly.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Peter Browning:

I am the Scientific Services Division Chief at the National Weather Services (NWS) Central Region Headquarters. In this role, I oversee the implementation of training and warning and forecast tools and techniques in support of operational services for 38 Weather Forecast Offices (WFO), 2 River Forecast Centers (RFC) and 5 Central Weather Service Units (CWSU). I have more than 27 years of experience in operational meteorology with the NWS and have seen great strides made in our abilities to improve warning and forecast services through the integration of scientific research and new technology. Yet with these advances, little has been done to improve the delivery of our expanded knowledge concerning the predictability of weather. The NWSs attempts to move into the digital world with grid-based forecasts remains today primarily as a tool for the generation of legacy (deterministic) text forecasts that are teletype ready. The deterministic grid based forecasts provided in the National Digital Forecast Database (NDFD) scream for the need for uncertainty information. As presented today, the implied skill of the NDFD without uncertainty information is the same for a temperature forecast at a specific location and time on day 1 as it is on day 7.

My interest in this topic (and in participating on this committee) rests in defining how the NWS can partner with the rest of the weather enterprise to define roles and standards for the provision of uncertainty information associated with weather. Weather information today is communicated in a fairly common format 12 hour day/night periods (more recently higher resolution in short term) with high/low temperatures, generic cloud cover (icons) and precipitation chances and type. What new reporting standard can we devise that makes reporting weather information and associated uncertainty information presentable and understandable to general users of weather information? I also strongly believe in the word partner. I feel that the NWS numerical models guidance needs to be provided in standard formats for the enterprise to make the best use of, to develop forecasts using the new reporting standard as well as for specialized use by them to meet their decision needs. The NWS forecasters are also users of this information with the final products being the man-machine mix which adds value to the warning and forecast skill.

I understand this will be quite a challenge and hope I can provide some measure of assistance to this committee.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Thomas W. Dulong:

I arrived in Oklahoma City last August as the new Meteorologist in Charge for the NWS Unit at the FAA Academy. With the support of five senior meteorologist instructors, the unit teaches basic weather fundamentals to entry-level air traffic controllers. The team also tests and certifies pilot weather briefers for Lockheed Martin Flight Service Stations across the country. Therefore, we have a keen understanding of how these customers use the suite of aviation weather products issued by the NWS.

Prior to my position in Oklahoma City, I was the Aviation Weather Training Lead at COMET/UCAR in Boulder, CO. I had difficulty dealing with some of the issues around deterministic versus probabilistic forecasting and the terminal aerodrome forecast (TAF).

Prior to my COMET connection, I was the Meteorologist in Charge of the Center Weather Service Unit in Longmont, CO. I quickly discovered that FAA Air Traffic Specialists want yes/no answers about weather and everything else.

Finally, over my many early years as an operational forecaster, I produced mostly subjective forecasts (back in the days when we still had to type the zone forecasts).

As part of the ACUF, I'd like to see where science and operations are on the issues of probabilistic forecasts and forecast uncertainty. Most importantly, I would like to influence the future in such areas.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Forum: ACUF

List of ACUF Volunteers

gary — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:57:13 GMT

Volunteers for the

Ad Hoc Committee on Uncertainty in Forecasts (ACUF)

Last updated 17 November 2008

The ACUF Co-Chairs

Elliot Abrams, CCM

AccuWeather, Inc.

385 Science Park Rd.

State College, PA 16803

814 2370837

fax 814 2357220

elliotabrams@gmail.com

Paul A. Hirschberg

National Weather Service

1325 East West Highway

Building SSMC2, Rm 15308

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283

301-713-3557 x169

Paul.Hirschberg@noaa.gov

The Other ACUF Volunteers

Steve Abelman

1325 East West Highway

Building SSMC2, Rm 15370

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283

301-713-3557 x182

steve.abelman@noaa.gov

Dr. Jon Ahlquist

Dept of Meteorology

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL 32306-4520

Office: 850-644-1558

Lab: 850-644-7511

ahlquist@met.fsu.edu

Jordan Alpert

NWS/NCEP/EMC

5200 Auth Road

Camp Springs MD 20746-4304

301-763-8005 x 7205

jordan.alpert@noaa.gov

Dan Bickford

Meteorologist

WSPA-TV

Spartanburg, SC

(864) 587-4447

dbickford@wspa.com

Matthew Biddle, Ph.D.

Community Service Officer

OUPD (Oklahoma University Police Department)

The University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK 73019

CELL 405.210.1990

HOME 405.364.9436

OUPD FAX 405.325.5122

GEOG FAX 405.325.6090

BUS 405.325.2864

mbiddle@ou.edu

Andrea Bleistein

Meteorologist

National Weather Service

Office of Science and Technology

1325 East-West Highway

Building SSMC2, Rm 15366

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283

301-713-3557 x183

Andrea.Bleistein@noaa.gov

Phil Breuser

P.O. Box 354

Redmond, WA 98073 U.S.A.

Phone: 206-579-0154

phil@philbreuser.com

David Bright

David.Bright@noaa.gov

Peter Browning

National Weather Service

Central Region Headquarters

7220 NW 101st Terrace

Kansas City, MO 64153

816-268-3110

Peter.Browning@noaa.gov

Gordon Brooks

4412 Anchor Mill Rd.

Bellevue, NE 68123

402-294-1682

Gordon.Brooks@afwa.af.mil

Barbara G. Brown

NCAR/P.O. Box 3000

Boulder CO 80307-3000 U.S.A.

Phone: (303) 497-8468

FAX: (303) 497-8401

bgb@ucar.edu

Bill Bua

bill.bua@noaa.gov

J.D. CETOLA, Lt Col, PhD

Chief, Tech Transition Division

Strategic Plans & Programs Directorate

Air Force Weather Agency

DSN 271-6177

(402) 294-6177

FAX: (402) 232-3101

cetolaj@offutt.af.mil

Dr Dan C Collins

NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center

5200 Auth Road

Camp Springs MD 20746-4325

301 763 8000 ext.7521

Dan.Collins@noaa.gov

Julie Demuth

Associate Scientist

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE)

Research Applications Laboratory (RAL)

P.O. Box 3000

Boulder, CO 80307-3000

303-497-8112

(f): 303-487-8125

jdemuth@ucar.edu

Shripad Deo

National Weather Service

7220 NW 101st Terrace

Kansas City, MO 64153

816 268 3123

FAX 816 891 7810

shripad.deo@gmail.com

Aimee Devaris

National Weather Service

Office of Climate, Weather and Water Services

Silver Spring, MD 20910

aimee.devaris@noaa.gov

Dr. Charles A. Doswell III, CCM

Senior Research Scientist

Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies

120 David L. Boren Blvd, Suite 2100

Norman, OK 73072-7304

Ph: (405) 325-6093

cdoswell@gcn.ou.edu

Dr. Jun Du

EMC/NCEP/NOAA

5200 Auth Rd.

Camp Springs, MD 20746

(301)763-8000 ext. 7593

Jun.Du@noaa.gov

Tom Dulong

Meteorologist in Charge

NWS FAA Academy

Building 30, Room 107

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73169-6901

Work (405) 954-6870

Cell (970) 231-1443

Fax (405) 954-6888

Tom.Dulong@noaa.gov

Gina Eosco

American Meteorological Society, Policy Program, Communication Research Associate

781-704-4458

eosco@ametsoc.org

Mary Erickson

Chief, Coast Survey Development Lab

Office of Coast Survey NOAA, National Ocean Service

301-713-2801 x121

Mary.Erickson@noaa.gov

John Ferree

Severe Storms Service Leader

NOAA/NWS Office of Climate Water and Weather Services

National Weather Center

120 David L. Boren Blvd. Suite 2312

Norman, OK 73072

Tel: (405) 325-2209

Fax: (405) 325-2938

John.T.Ferree@noaa.gov

Greg Fishel

Chief Meteorologist

WRAL-TV Weather Center Attn: Greg Fishel

PO Box 12000

Raleigh, NC 27605

Work: 919-821-8720

Mobile: 919-302-4697 (preferred)

Fax: 919-821-8792

gfishel@wral.com

John Gaynor

NOAA - Office of Weather and Air Quality

1315 East West Hwy

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301-734-1178

Fax: 310-713-1459

John.Gaynor@noaa.gov

Bob (aka Harry) Glahn

National Weather Service

SSMC2, Room 10214

1325 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Harry.Glahn@noaa.gov

Thomas M. Hamill

NOAA/ESRL, Physical Sciences Division

R/PSD 1, 325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305-3328

Phone : (303) 497-3060

fax : (303) 497-7013

tom.hamill@noaa.gov

John Hannan

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road

MSC 6201

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

john.hannan@dtra.mil

Jim Hansen

Naval Research Laboratory

Bldg 702, Rm 107

7 Grace Hopper Ave.

Monterey, CA 93943-5502

Phone: (831) 656-4741

Fax: (831) 656-4769

jim.hansen@nrlmry.navy.mil

Pat Hayes

Meteorologist, DTRA Programs

Northrop Grumman Corp

8211 Terminal Rd Ste 1000

Lorton VA 22079-1421

VOICE: 571-642-6759

FAX: 571-642-0476

PatHayes@msn.com

Paul O. G. Heppner

3SI

12000 Lincoln Drive W. #203A

Marlton, NJ 08053

(P) 856-596-2226; (F) 856-596-1928

Pheppner@3sinc.com

Doug Hilderbrand

National Weather Service

Office of Science and Technology

1325 East-West Highway

Building SSMC2, Rm 15360

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283

301-713-3557 x179

douglas.hilderbrand@noaa.gov

Ross N. Hoffman, Ph.D. (tentative)

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

131 Hartwell Avenue

Lexington, MA 02421-3126

phone: +1.781.761.2288 (AER main number)

fax: +1.781.761.2299

rhoffman@aer.com

Eddie Holmes, CBM (tentative)

226 Maddox Drive

Jackson , TN 38305

731-217-6276

eholmes@aeneas.net

Michael Johnson

Federal Aviation Adminstration

4854 Eisenhower Ave, Unit #252

Alexandria, VA 22304

202-385-7192

mike.d.johnson@faa.gov

Chris Kiley

Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS)

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Chemical Biological Technologies Directorate

8211 Terminal Road, Suite 1000

Lorton, VA 22079-1421

christopher.kiley_contractor@dtra.mil

Evan Kuchera

Meteorologist

Air Force Weather Agency

106 Peacekeeper Drive, STE 2N3

Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4039

402-294-3724

kucherae@offutt.af.mil

Carlie Lawson

President/Senior Planner

Natural Hazards Consulting

P.O. Box 831

Norman, OK 73071 USA

TEL: 405.708.HAZD (4293)

clawson@natural-hazards.info

Jenifer Clare Martin

National Center for Atmospheric Research

3450 Mitchell Lane

Boulder, CO 80301

(303) 497-8423

Fax: (303) 497-8386

Jenifer.Martin@Colorado.edu

Chris Maier

National Warning Coordination Meteorologist

NOAA National Weather Service Headquarters

1325 East West Highway

SSMC2, OS51, Rm 14442

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301-713-0090 (x175)

fax: 301-713-1598

chris.maier@noaa.gov

Bernard N. Meisner, Ph.D. CCM

Chief, Science & Training

NWS Southern Region

819 Taylor Street, Room 10A03

Fort Worth, TX 76102-6124

817-978-1300 (office)

817-966-1302 (cell)

817-978-3475 (fax)

bernard.meisner@noaa.gov

Dr. Betty Hearn Morrow

Professor Emeritus, Sociology

Florida International University

SocResearch Miami

8215 SW 140 Avenue

Miami, Fl 33183

Phone: 305 385 5953

Fax: 305 385 7364

betty@bmorrow.com

Rebecca Morss

National Center for Atmospheric Research

P.O. Box 3000

Boulder, CO 80307

Voice: 303-497-8172

FAX: 303-497-8171

morss@ucar.edu

David Myrick

NOAA/NWS/WR/SSD

125 S. State Street

Rm. 1217

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

W: 801-524-5131

David.Myrick@noaa.gov

Daniel Nietfeld

NOAA/NWS/WFO Omaha

6707 N 288th Street

Valley, NE 68064-9443

Science and Operations Officer

402-359-5166 x766

dan.nietfeld@noaa.gov

Dave Novak

NOAA/NWS Eastern Region Hq.

630 Johnson Ave

Suite 202

Bohemia, NY 11716

(631) 244-0134

fax: (631) 244-0167

David.Novak@noaa.gov

Dr. Paul Nutter (tentative)

Earth Sciences Program

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, CO 80639

(970) 351-2398

Paul.Nutter@unco.edu

Dan O'Hair, Ph.D.

Presidential Professor

Director, Center for Risk and Crisis Management

Director, Institute for Communication Research

Department of Communication

University of Oklahoma

Norman, OK 73019

405.325.1619 (o)

hdohair@ou.edu

Steven Payne

CNMOC 0TM

228-688-5507

steven.w.payne@navy.mil

Brenda Philips

Director, Industry, Government, and End User Partnerships

Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the

Atmosphere (CASA)

University of Massachusetts

College of Engineering

151 Holdsworth Way, Knowles 209

Amherst, MA 01003

413-577-2213

bphilips@ecs.umass.edu

Carla Roncoli, PhD

Assistant Research Scientist

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering

The University of Georgia

Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797, USA

404-524-8833

770-228-7218 (fax)

croncoli@uga.edu

Dan Satterfield

Chief Meteorologist

WHNT TV

3607 Panorama Drive SE

Huntsville, AL 35801

256-682-1030

dansat@gmail.com

John Schaake (retired NOAA)

1A3 Spa Creek Landing

Annapolis, MD 21403

Home 410-263-6640

Cell 410-320-4838

John.Schaake@noaa.gov

Paul Schultz

NOAA/GSD

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305

(303) 497-6997

(303) 497-7262 fax

paul.j.schultz@noaa.gov

Prof Leonard A. Smith

Director

Centre for the Analysis of Time Series

Department of Statistics

London School of Economics

Houghton Street

London WC2A 2AE

020 7955 7626

020 7955 7416

lenny@maths.ox.ac.uk

John Sokich

Meteorologist

National Weather Service

1325 East-West Highway

Building SSMC2, Rm 11426

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283

301-713-0258 x175

John.Sokich@noaa.gov

Alan E. Stewart, Ph. D.

Associate Professor

Coordinator, Community Counseling Masters Program

The University of Georgia

Department of Counseling & Human Development

402 Aderhold Hall

Athens, Georgia 30602-7142

Vox: 706.542.1263

Fax: 706.542.4130

aeswx@uga.edu

Dan Stillman

10763 Mist Haven Terrace

Rockville, MD 20852

Cell: 301-642-0036

Work: 703-312-7138

StillmanD@aol.com

Neil Stuart

Senior Forecaster

NWS Albany, NY

AMS WAF Committee

WASIS member

518-435-9581

Neil.Stuart@noaa.gov

Zolton Toth

NOAA/NWS/NCEP

5200 Auth Rd., Rm. 207

Camp Springs, MD 20746

Phone: (301) 763-8000/ext. 7596

Fax: (301) 763-8545

Zoltan.Toth@noaa.gov

Steve Tracton

379 N St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

202 330-1090

s.tracton@hotmail.com

Robyn L. Weeks

Technology Manager,

Operational Weather Graphics

The Weather Channel

770.226.2052

rweeks@weather.com

Dick Westergard, CCM

Shade Tree Meteorology, LLC

Tel. 518-831-9374

Toll Free 888-580-0747

Fax 518-374-7743

ShadeTreeMet@aol.com

Bernadette Woods

WJZ-TV

2246 Bank St.

Baltimore, MD 21231

410-534-1102

bernadettemw@hotmail.com

Inactive volunteers:

Chris Elfring, Director

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

The National Academies (K-636)

500 Fifth Street NW

Washington DC 20001

202 334 3426 direct

202 334 3512 main

202 334 1477 fax

celfring@nas.edu

Scott Sandgathe

Principal Meteorologist

APL-UW

541-988-0289

Forum: ACUF