Living on the Real World

For me, the week after the annual AMS meeting each year is usually a week of catch-up in my home DC-based office. But this year finds me instead in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. I’m sitting in as a member of the advisory board for the Department of Homeland Security’s Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence at the University of North Carolina. A brief squib from their website gives the background:

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill leads the Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence (CRC), made possible through a five-year, $20 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate, Office of University Programs. The CRC is a consortium of universities, private companies, and government agencies focused on applied research, education and outreach addressing threats to coastal communities due to natural hazards and climate change.

 The CRC expands on work conducted through the DHS Coastal Hazards Center of Excellence, which was co-led by UNC-Chapel Hill and Jackson State University from 2008 to 2015…

 …The CRC’s leadership team is comprised of Dr. Rick Luettich, Lead Principal Investigator; Dr. Gavin Smith, Director; Dr. Robert Whalin, Education and Workforce Director (Jackson State University); Dr. Tom Richardson, Associate Director (Jackson State University); and Anna Schwab, Program Manager.

One hundred people are crammed into the meeting room, which crackles with positive energy, laced with a bit of constructive tension. There are the academics doing the research and teaching, coming from more than twenty universities stretching from Oregon to Rhode Island, from Florida to Texas, and points in between. DHS has a small crowd of representatives here; others are listening in/participating by phone/webinar. Partner agencies – NOAA, USACE, Coast Guard, and others are all here. The progress made since the last meeting has been extraordinary, on topics ranging from adaptive-grid, numerical modeling of storm surge and merging of hydrologic and ocean models to get at inundation, to engineering, risk communication, community planning, and STEM education. Projects that had seemed silo-ed and disjointed a year or so ago are better integrated.

But the pressure is on. DHS is focused, looking forward to a biennial review of the Center to take place soon. This meeting is something of a dry run. At the biennial review, they’ll be requiring concrete evidence of high-quality, peer-reviewed research; concrete contribution to impact-based decision support for specific, identified end users; quantitative measures of progress and value; not just numbers of STEM participants but individual narratives of the minority- and other students who’ve participated in the STEM education and how their career trajectories have been changed.

Stakes are high. DHS will work with the Center after the biennial review and decide which of the various projects will continue for the next two years, and which will be terminated in order to free up funds for promising new starts. As one P.I. shared with me privately, it’s not as relaxed as NSF. The academics are struggling a bit to adjust. But they are adjusting. And even with the extra reporting requirements, there’s a sense of team, pride and accomplishment across the room. The DHS panel isn’t sitting in judgment so much as actively engaging with investigators to tighten things up. The researchers aren’t whining; they’re on board and getting clever about meeting the DHS objectives.

In between struggling to keep up with the fast pace of the presentations and the Q&A, and marveling at the speed of progress that CRC and its member institutions are making, I reflect on the fact that this is merely 100 people, and $4M a year worth of work. When it comes to Earth observations, science, and science-based services, we’re talking about maybe $20B a year and by inference perhaps maybe 500,000 engaged professionals working with equal focus, industry, and a sense of urgency across the whole of the natural-resource, hazard-, and environmental protection-agenda. That translates into 50,000 such 100-person groups. I can’t see them but they’re also making progress at similar warp speed.

If you’re reading this post, chances are good that includes you and your network of collaborators. I know you have to dive back in, but before you do, please give yourself a moment and the grace to reflect on the significance of your work and your contributions to making this a better world. Give yourself and your co-workers a mental pat on the back.

A refreshing change, and reassuring to see, given the current season of sturm und drang inside the Beltway.

Reassuring? Far too tame a word. Make that inspiring.

Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.

An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and is not solicited by a party, but who assists a court by offering information that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.

 Amicus humani generis: a philanthropist (literally, friend of the human race).

 Today the American Meteorological Society joins the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists to file an amicus brief in support of the U.S. Department of Commerce, defendant, in a suit brought by Judicial Watch, Inc. This formal action of the Society prompted this (wholly personal) reflection. Three points.

Amicus brief.

Without getting too entangled in the thicket of events and actions and perceptions that is the context here, the basic history is that NOAA has publicly released the data and the methodology behind a specific scientific publication to the Congress per a request dating back many months (in the Obama administration). However, Judicial Watch, Inc. is seeking additional, privileged correspondence and preliminary material. The amicus brief argues that this is a misuse of public records laws, an unfortunate practice that is on the rise. The amicus brief maintains that the deliberative process privilege appropriately protects the confidentiality of government scientists’ correspondence and drafts.

Amicus curiae.

It’s important to note that the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the American Meteorological Society submitted this brief, unsolicited, as friends of the court, to help the court in its deliberations, to help get the legal process right. The brief happens to support the defendant in this instance, but is aimed at the larger question that justice be served. The court alone decides whether these materials are truly helpful, or are to be ignored.

Amicus humani generis.

Most of us think of philanthropy as a matter of funding, but in fact the concept is broader:

1. altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes…
2. an organization devoted to helping needy persons or to other socially useful purposes. [emphasis added]

One of the most satisfying aspects of being an AMS member for half a century has been the sense of belonging to an organization – a community – that sees itself as, and acts like, a friend of the entire human race. A friend of Congress – all members and staffers of Congress. Of Federal agencies. Of Courts. Private enterprise. Universities. NGOs. Of 330 million Americans, and seven billion people worldwide. Advancing science? Applying that science for the protection of lives and property in the face of natural hazards? Aiding the world in its quest for food, water, and energy and other natural resources? Helping maintain critical ecosystem services? This feels like a much needed form of friendship for the whole human race.

In a small way, this AMS amicus spirit parallels the closing thoughts shared by President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Words to live by, especially today, when civil strife is so rampant, and so many people, of all persuasions, feel like combatants.

You can find Lincoln’s entire speech here.

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

“This,” cried the Mayor, “is your town’s darkest hour!

The time for all Whos who have blood that is red

To come to the aid of their country!” he said.

“We’ve GOT to make noises in greater amounts!

So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!”

(with a tip of the hat to Dr. Gina M. Eosco of ERG, who in various presentations has helped us all see so much of the world through the lens of Dr. Seuss)

I get asked a lot why AMS “doesn’t do more advocacy,” with particular reference to e-mail-writing campaigns, for example. Have to confess I’m not a big fan. First off, Congressional staffers are almost unanimous in expressing disdain for form letters, even when they come in relatively large numbers. (The NGO’s that do this? Many are doing no more than helping their members “feel involved.”)

And the AMS doesn’t bring to bear relatively large numbers. Let’s compare ourselves to AARP. We have 13,000 members around the world. Not bad! But AARP has something like one million members – in Virginia. We have unrestricted net assets order of $10M. Again, not bad.[1] But AARP has assets totaling something more like $3B.

So guess which NGO is in favor of seeing who can yell the loudest, and thus sling its weight around?

Who yells the loudest? That’s where Horton and the Who’s come in. A smidgen of the plot: Horton the Elephant, who, while splashing in a pool, hears a small speck of dust talking to him. Horton surmises that a small person lives on the speck and places it on a clover, vowing to protect it. He later discovers that the speck is actually a tiny planet, home to a community called Whoville, where microscopic creatures called Whos live. The Mayor of Whoville asks Horton to protect them from harm, which Horton happily agrees to, proclaiming throughout the book that “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

You remember (or can guess) what happens next. Preserving a people so tiny in Horton’s world is a daunting task. Horton’s contemporaries find his behavior crazy. They refuse to believe his narrative, and taunt and vex him repeatedly, finally putting the Who’s in great jeopardy. It’s vital that Horton’s companions hear what Horton’s been hearing all along. The Who’s shout in unison, but still can’t be heard. Just when all seems lost, the mayor finds one shirker, JoJo, who hasn’t been making noise. When JoJo adds his voice to the chorus, they reach the needed threshold; the other jungle animals hear them and help Horton bring matters to a happy conclusion.

Okay, Bill, please tell us there’s a point to this.

Sure! The AMS is most effective when it takes the time needed to construct a single statement that has the weight of Council deliberation and full membership input behind it, such as the statement on freedom of scientific expression, just renewed at the AMS Annual Meeting in Seattle this past week.

The AMS also has great effect when it partners up with the Hortons of the world. Two examples:

The first is our membership in the American Institute of Physics – a coalition of physical-science societies, representing 120,000 members. This membership now brings the AIP monthly journal Physics Today to our mailboxes (a kind of Bulletin of the AMS on the big screen, but featuring articles from our members, such as “How to Deal with Climate Change,” published by Paul Higgins in October of 2014). But it also means that we can contribute to, and benefit from, more policy-focused AIP activities, including but not limited to a suite of publications available under the label FYI. An excerpt from a recent e-mail from AIP CEO Robert Brown describes the newest FYI product, FYI This Week:

At this time in our nation’s history, it is more important than ever for scientists to galvanize support for continued federal funding of science and to promote well-informed science policy. Developments in the coming weeks and months will be critical. We can help keep your membership informed through FYI, a science policy news service from AIP.

The sign-up is free, and it is an easy way for interested parties to stay on top of what is happening within the Trump administration and in Congress. Today, the FYI team launched a new product, FYI This Week. Click here for the first edition. Each edition will include a look at the week ahead and a review of the week just passed. It will also list upcoming events, opportunities to get engaged, and links to articles from other publications.

If you’re interested in staying abreast of events and actions in the turbulent Washington scene, especially as they impact Earth observations, science, and science-based services, FYI merits your attention and support.

The second? The AMS joined AAAS and numerous other signatories in responding to the ill-considered January 27, 2017 White House Executive Order on visas and immigration. The letter lays out in clear crisp terms how scientific progress depends on openness, transparency, and the free flow of ideas and people, and these principles have helped the United States attract and richly benefit from international scientific talent.

It points out that the Executive Order will discourage many of the best and brightest international students, scholars, engineers and scientists from studying and working, attending academic and scientific conferences, or seeking to build new businesses in the United States. Implementation of this policy will compromise the United States’ ability to attract international scientific talent and maintain scientific and economic leadership.

151 institutional signatories? Memberships totaling in the millions?

A great deal of extra effort on the part of Keith Seitter, the AMS Executive Director, AMS staff and volunteer leadership, but leveraging our impact.

In these and other clever ways the AMS Who’s can be heard. And the community of Ed Lorenz’ butterfly should certainly understand the importance of JoJo. Each of us matters.

___________________________________________

[1] A brief infomercial: you can improve that AMS balance sheet by donating to the AMS Centennial campaign just getting underway. Information will soon be up on the AMS website.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. – Proverbs 26:4 (NIV)

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. – Proverbs 26:5 (NIV)

Yes, you read that right. The two proverbs follow one another in the Old Testament. It’s not possible to read them in isolation. They lead to only one conclusion: in the presence of a fool, you’re in a lose-lose situation. Silence and acquiescence are not the answer; neither is confrontation.

This isn’t some mere abstraction. In fact, some might see this catch-22 in today’s political climate. The turbulence and noise from today’s politics is deafening – and feels more than a little sinister. Whether the topic is health care or immigration or trade or environment (or science more broadly) or education or national security, the first sound we hear is the sound of a wrecking ball being put to years of established precedent (imperfect precedent, to be sure, but nonetheless hard-won, the product of years if not decades of national dialog). That’s followed by a more distressing sound, the anguished cries of the largely innocent who chanced to be at the point of impact and are now falling into the category of “collateral damage.” It is these few who are unfairly bearing the brunt. Half of the nation is gleeful; they take these cries of alarm and suffering as “proof” that the change is “working.” The other half of the nation is horrified, and moved to demonstration, but nonetheless anesthetized by some distance from the personal impacts and by what Paul Slovic has called the “numbing effect” of statistics. Not since the Civil War has the country been so split down the middle, with both factions so utterly convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

What to do?

The answer might lie in thinking like meteorologists, and drawing from the lessons of cloud microphysics. Such a notion might seem impossibly simplistic, in the face of such trying times. But hear me out.

With apologies to my colleagues and friends who are card-carrying cloud microphysicists and actually know this complex and important subject at some considerable depth, here is what I remember.

The water vapor in clouds doesn’t condense to form water or ice at random in the air. Instead they coalesce around cloud condensation nuclei or CCN’s – aerosol particles so small that they’re carried about by the wind and remain aloft for extended periods. Many materials function as CCN’s, but loosely speaking, they fall into two categories.

The warm cloud nuclei foster formation of water droplets in clouds at temperatures above freezing – 32⁰ Fahrenheit or 0⁰ Centigrade. By and large, these particles are hygroscopic. They’re particles of salt and/or acidic (aggregates of oxides of sulfur or nitrogen, for example). They absorb water, and – this is the important bit – they are dissolved by that water.

Ice nuclei – the particles responsible for water-vapor coalescence in cloud temperatures cooler than the freezing point – work differently. They’re soil particles such as clays, or other substances, whose crystal lattice structure happens to mimic the structure of ice crystals at corresponding temperatures. That structure remains firm, unchanged, as the water freezes onto it. They discipline the water, rather than lose their identity in it.

The lesson for us? As individuals, and as groups of individuals? To focus more on who we are – our core values – and what we stand for, rather than what we’re against.

For an individual, or even an organization, no matter how big (or whether government or private-sector or academic) to choose to stand against ideas or actions, from whatever source or however evil, is to risk being torn apart by all the competing pulls and tugs from such great diversity. Seven billion people, singly, and in different combinations (aggregated as other countries, etc.) can think of and promote an uncountable number of things that we disagree with, even violently. But to engage in firefighting (to argue with the fools, plural) is to be spread so thin and to be necessarily so reactive as to quickly burn out. There’s no way this route is sustainable.

By contrast, standing for something, or for a small basket of somethings – core values, ambitions, and things – is to make the task manageable, and sustainable. Consider, for example:

We’re members of the American Meteorological Society. We advance the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.

Standing for something is not to be drawn into empty argument. But it’s not to be silent either. It works equally well with fool or wise, or enemy or friend. So you want to survive the world of 2017, and not just survive, but make a substantive, positive difference? You might start with the AMS mission, as stated above. Add the mission statement of your agency or university or company or NGO or church or any other group that matters to you. Integrate with your personal core values of integrity and compassion, and all the rest. (Or reverse the order; any order works.) Take time to write that all down in a simple paragraph or page, or as a set of bullets you find satisfying and compelling. Then start living out your life that way, working out of your list and making adjustments as you encounter circumstances that require a tweak or a bit of reworking. Listen as others make their case to you. Have a high tolerance for what others stand for, and patience for what they rail against. But avoid argument, instead quietly insisting on a common search for truth – what to stand for. It still won’t be easy. But it will be manageable, and you can sustain it for the long term.

An extra bonus. You just might discover that other person, the one you’d been quick to label a fool, is wiser than you’d first thought.

Truth be told? Most of us have been living our lives this way all along. If we haven’t been, if we’ve allowed ourselves to be complacent and drift along with this or that tribe, then making this vital adjustment will be a bit more difficult at first, but well worth the effort.

Blessings.

I’m Bill Hooke, and the AMS changed my life.

A bit of departure from the usual fare for these posts.

The 97^th annual AMS meeting is wrapping up here in Seattle. Exhibitors are breaking down their booths and displays. The last day’s scientific sessions are in full swing. And for those of us on AMS staff, along with the much larger number of folks who generously lead and serve the AMS in diverse volunteer capacities, the final batch of side meetings is underway. Some, like the NWS stakeholders meeting, draw a big crowd. Others involve smaller numbers yet are nonetheless vital. For example, each year, Thursday focuses on meeting planning: this time around, a debrief on the 2017 meeting just concluded and thanks to the program chairs and exhibitors. Planning conversations for the 2018 Meeting to be held in Austin, Texas, drawing on a blend of lessons learned and moving in the direction of the incoming AMS president’s chosen theme of communications. The AMS Annual Meeting Oversight Committee, considering strategic opportunities and trends for annual meetings over the long term. And so on.

In addition, this morning also saw a meeting of the Centennial Committee, preparing for the 2019 and 2020 AMS Annual meetings that will frame the celebration of AMS’ 100^th year. Actually, those two annual meetings, even with all the special functions being planned, are merely the tip of the iceberg. Under the leadership of Bill Gail, the Centennial Committee is also wrestling with opportunities for new AMS initiatives, institutional transformation, and engaging outside groups and larger publics more effectively, as well as addressing a set of cross-cutting issues. The 100^th anniversary is a big deal. Please sign on! The celebration shouldn’t be confined to a small committee, with 13,000 spectators. It should involve 13,000 participants. (Come to think of it, the whole country should be celebrating – all 330 million of us. Maybe the broadcast meteorologists can lead us there.)

At the start of the Centennial Committee meeting, Bill Gail had those in the room do self-introductions. We were invited to share, individually: how has the AMS changed our lives?

You should have been there! A great set of inspiring narratives from the twenty or so people in the room. Reminded me:

In the 1960’s, I was a newly-minted Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. I was working in Boulder, Colorado, at the Institutes for Environmental Research of the Environmental Science Services Administration (what would become the research labs of NOAA in 1970). Out of the blue (the only color of sky in Colorado), the AMS reached out. They wanted a token young person (my framing) as a member-at-large of their Publications Commission. What a great opportunity! I eagerly signed on, for what would turn out to be the first of three three-year terms (things were less rigidly structured then). A year later, Ken Spengler, then the AMS Executive Director, put his arm around me at a meeting and suggested since I was on the committee, it would be a nice touch if I were actually an AMS member.

Duh.

Anyway, that was the start. Because the AMS actually asked me to do something, that began a sustained relationship which has persisted to this day.

In the 1975 time frame, I got tired of the fact that gravity-wave researchers (my small tribe) were always consigned to last-day meeting sessions with lesser crowds. It occurred to me that I could start a STAC committee! So I did, working with Ken Spengler to establish a Committee on Atmospheric and Oceanic Waves and Stability. We held our first meeting here in Seattle in 1976, down the street at what was then the Olympic Hotel.

How to get people to attend the first meeting? A big concern. So I made two phone calls (no e-mails then). The first was to Jule Charney. The second was to Owen Phillips. They didn’t know me from Adam.

Were they interested? Could they come across the country and give a talk? Long story short… of course they could! After all, they were AMS members. Sharp scientifically, but also people-oriented, encouraging, helpful by nature, inclined to mentoring. So, that allowed me to make dozens of phone calls after that, always leading with Jule Charney and Owen Phillips are coming to this meeting. Would you be interested? Joe Pedlosky came. Hsaio-Lan Kuo came. Francis Bretherton gave a keynote. Jim O’Brien came. And many more. Eventually something like 200 people showed up. And it worked. The meeting was five full days, and only ten percent of us gave our talks on the sparsely attended, dreaded Friday afternoon session. Today, 40 years later, under the name Atmospheric and Oceanic Dynamics, the Committee is still going strong.

Down the road, the AMS asked me to run for Council. Sure! Set an AMS record for the smallest number of votes ever cast for any candidate. A few years later, they asked me a second time. That time around, served on the Council and briefly on the EC for three years in the 1990’s.

The AMS had changed my life.

Not long after, in 2000, the AMS became my life.

Then-AMS-executive-director Ron McPherson and Dick Greenfield invited me downtown from my NOAA Silver Spring office under false pretenses. McPherson asked: Brother Hooke, what’s keeping you from joining the AMS Policy Program staff? After a nanosecond’s hesitation: Nothing. Greenfield piled on: When can you start? Another nanosecond dragged by. Seemed like forever. Two weeks?

Dick laughed, Bill, maybe you ought to give NOAA more notice than that. So I extended to 30 days. Left NOAA on May 31 and started with AMS on June 3.

Quite simply, the last going-on-seventeen years have been the most satisfying of my career. At Ron McPherson’s suggestion, we started the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium (infomercial: Please apply! This year we run from June 4-13. And in case you’ve just returned from Mars, you should know that things have changed since you left. 2017 promises to be an especially interesting year.) And Ron and then Keith Seitter have generously allowed me to plug in across a wonderfully wide range of other AMS work.

You have your own truth to tell. How has the AMS changed your life? Please share your narrative, not just on this blog (although that would be great), but also with your friends and colleagues. We want to hear your story! And your story will prompt theirs.

While we’re all celebrating this history, we can lift a glass in the AMS direction. Maybe even contribute to the development fund, give back to AMS, help AMS pay it forward.

Excuse the personal digression. Next post, back to the fate of western civilization. 🙂

“Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge: the serenity to accept the things we cannot predict, the courage to predict the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” – Nate Silver[1]

“The signal is the truth. The noise is what distracts us from the truth.” ― Nate Silver

The year 2017 might be a good time for those in the business of Earth observations, science, and science-based services to heed Nate Silver’s 2012 encouragement to focus on the signal and not the noise[2].

Two important signals dominate our times (though not necessarily our thinking).

Physical-world realities: what is the Earth doing? The state and dynamics of the atmosphere, ocean, and solid Earth. Trends in average conditions, extending out to centuries and beyond. The cycles of flood and drought, heat and cold, and other acute, localized, extreme departures from the averages. The availability of water, food, and energy, and other natural resources. The threat of hazards. Response of the physical world to human actions – the impact of seven billion people on habitat, biodiversity, air and water quality, and ecosystem services.

Social realities: our need to know. Seven billion people must track and anticipate what the physical world will do next. What’s coming? Locally, over the next few minutes? Globally, or time scales extending out to centuries and more? What is the physical world up to? Of course, day-to-day, in our manmade urban cocoon, we may fail to take notice for a short period. We can lose ourselves even further – absorbed, even transfixed by the seductive virtual realities that the Internet makes so widely and reliably available. But we can ignore the actualities of our physical environment only for so long. Sooner or later, wherever we may be, however sheltered we deem ourselves, on whatever time horizon, the Earth we live on does things that claim our undivided attention.

Day by day, year on year, these stakes of living on the real world increase. The rewards for knowing what’s on tap – what lies ahead – magnify. The value proposition of Earth observations, science, and science-based services ratchets upwards.

If these are the signals, what is the noise?

In a word? Politics.

Back in 2012, just as Nate Silver’s book was coming out, the Norwegian infotainment program Siffer put out a wonderful little one-minute video on trend and variation (translation: signal versus noise). You probably saw it at the time.

Take a(nother) look. As you watch it, remember: the importance of the Earth observations, science, and services that you do?

That’s the signal.

The political debate and public discussion about it – however loud or angry or divisive or turbulent? Or seemingly interminable?

That’s the noise.

__________________________

If you’re interested, a 2011 entry in this blog (also posted from an AMS Annual Meeting, also in Seattle) treated a similar subject. You can find it here.

__________________________

[1]With a presumed apology to or acknowledgment of Reinhold Niebur?. His serenity prayer goes like this: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

[2] Nate Silver, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don’t, (2012).

Ethics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

“Most people, when they consider the boundary between right and wrong, try to stay on the right side, as far away from the line as possible. Beware of those who promise to get you closer to that boundary than anyone has gone without crossing it.” – Robert Hooke (1918-2003).

On the occasion of today’s inauguration, yesterday’s LOTRW predictions continue: ethics will be a huge focus of the national discussion.

Really, Bill? Tell us something we don’t know.

Okay, okay. Given the headlines of the past year, and especially the past two months, this seems to belabor the obvious. Whether it’s the ethics of political leadership amidst financial entanglements, or dragging reluctant publics into a post-fact world, or using executive actions to circumvent Congressional will, or broad application of the presidential pardons, or falsifying auto emissions data, or the lead content of public water supplies, or hovering up the personal data of smartphone users, our political and business leaders are preoccupied with ethical issues and beset with critics.

But ethics begins at home, doesn’t it? Literally. That’s where you and I learn about ethics and see it in the behavior of our parents and neighbors and friends, whether in the observance or the breach. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t think of my mathematician dad’s advice, quoted above. And he lived by that code.

For most of us, the ethics discussion starts early but feels peripheral. There’s the matter of grabbing our younger sibling’s toys. Sorry, bro – but then again, my memory is that you gave as good as you got.

But thereafter, it ratchets up, usually discontinuously. That first time someone asks you to cheat on a school exam. The day you get a driver’s license, and are suddenly responsible for the lives of others on a daily basis. When you land a government job, and take essentially the same oath that presidents take today and every four years. When you get a security clearance. When you transition from private business to public official – maybe even president. On all these occasions, your technical abilities and life skills matter, but the one that’s paramount is your integrity – and your ability to be fair and just and open despite higher pressures and stakes of your new role.

Bring it home, Bill.

Just this kind of seismic shift is underway in Earth sciences, observations, and science-based services. Think about it. Ethics don’t matter so much when the stakes are low (those kid’s toys; they matter only because those are formative years; you and I are deciding what kind of adults we’ll become). They also don’t much matter when any scope for action is trivial. But as the stakes rise, and our actions become more consequential, then ethics move to center stage. Time was, when nature’s bounty seemed limitless, when sources of food and water and energy were abundant and cheap, and where populations were scattered and rural, ethics mattered less. Today we live in a zero-margin world, where all of us are interconnected and interdependent. Living on today’s real world feels more zero-sum. The rights of the poor and otherwise marginalized are in visible jeopardy.

Also, back in the day, our meteorological and climatological predictions weren’t of much value. They were uncertain, laughably so. An example: in every sector, farmers and fishermen and business owners assumed personal responsibility for their weather awareness. They were skeptical of forecasts and relied more on their own sense of the sky and its implications for their work. Today, by contrast, our outlooks and predictions are far superior to those of the past, and are getting more reliable year-on-year. At the same time, agribusiness and energy and transportation sectors and many others have come to depend upon forecasts extending out several days. They are adept in use of probabilistic information and insist on specification of uncertainty.

In this high-stakes environment where the products and services we provide are the basis for action, ethics matter. When can and should a NWS field forecaster begin to act when numerical guidance appears to diverge from on-the-ground reality? What observations, products and services should be considered public goods? What can and should be privatized? What’s at stake with warn-on-forecast? To list these few examples doesn’t do justice to the dozens of ethical dimensions to the daily work of everyone in every corner of today’s Earth observations, science, and services community.

So expect ethics to become a greater part of our dialog over the next four years – and for decades after that. And expect professional societies such as the AMS to pay more attention to these in each Annual Meeting and other venues. Here in Seattle in 2017, there’ll be a Sunday afternoon session in Room 613 of the Convention Center, from 1:30-3:30. Tom Ackerman (meteorologist and climatologist) and Steve Gardiner (philosopher and ethicist) of the University of Washington will lead the discussion.

Later in the week, a panel of the 12^th Symposium on Societal Applications: Policy, Research, and Practice, entitled Shades of Gray: A Panel Discussion on Ethics, Law and Uncertainty in the Weather, Water, Climate Community, will be held in the same room, 613. Jay Austin will moderate the panel, which will include:Paul Higgins, Director, AMS Policy Program, Gina Eosco, Risk Communication Expert, Eastern Research Group, Harold Brooks, Senior Research Scientist, National Severe Storms Laboratory, and Jason Samenow, Chief Meteorologist, Washington Post Capital Weather Gang.

Drop by both these sessions if you can. Participate!

See you there.

The augury determining that Romulus, not Remus, would rule Rome

Many words could have been applied to America’s four-year swearing-in ceremony for new presidents, observed once again tomorrow. Why this particular word? Hard to find any history peculiar to its choice here in the United States, but generically, we’re told it stems from the Latin augur, which refers to the rituals of ancient Roman priests seeking to interpret if it was the will of the gods for a public official to be deemed worthy to assume office. It also, in some applications, refers less to the process of determining what the omens might be saying, and more to waiting until the omens aligned favorably – picking a propitious time – before starting new ventures. The word augur can be used as a noun, to refer to the priests examining the omens. It can also be used as a verb: to divine or predict, as from omens; prognosticate.

Hmm. Substitute observations and data for omens – and that’s what meteorologists do. Perhaps meteorologists ought to be particularly interested in inauguration day, and perhaps their inauguration counsel ought to be particularly heeded by political leaders and their publics.

Dream on, Bill.

Okay, so you didn’t ask, but here’s a notional augury for the next four years. Please don’t take it as the final forecast! Instead, treat it as the opening statement in a map discussion. Contribute your own views or superior alternatives.

First, the forecast for tomorrow’s weather in DC, taken from the NWS website at the instant I’m writing this: Rain, mainly before 5pm. High near 48. Southeast wind 3 to 6 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New precipitation amounts between a tenth and quarter of an inch possible. Of course, this forecast is subject to change and refinement. You should look for updates here, or maybe from The Capital Weather Gang.

More significantly, U.S. weather of the next four years will affect our fortunes as individuals and a nation. Because our level of understanding is only partial – as to how that weather will unfold over this time period, and which regions will be affected, in which order, and how given patterns of flood and drought and storm and calm translate into societal impacts – we’ll struggle to see what’s really happening to us. We’ll know we’re vexed by the vicissitudes of weather, especially the extremes, but we’ll be unable to measure fully the impact on our agriculture, our energy use, and our water resources, and thus on our economy. We’ll sense vaguely that our vulnerability to hazards continues, but find it difficult to learn from experience and bring those disaster losses down. We’ll see localized, episodic degradation to landscapes, habitat, biodiversity, and air and water quality generally, but be at something of a loss when it comes to stemming the tide. And we’ll see the integrated effects of all this: slow, somewhat variable, but generally steady atmospheric and oceanic warming; rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and more.

Completing this forecast? We’re told that requires statement of the uncertainty. When it comes to the weather per se, the uncertainty is minimal. The far larger uncertainty is our response as individuals and a nation. The weather is coming, but the impacts of that weather will reflect how we choose to do business. One option? We can whine about these impacts, and keep doing business as usual, and watch the bad outcomes continue to ratchet up over the next four years.

Or – we can rise to the challenge. We can invest more in anticipating what the weather will do next, hour to hour and season to season. That’s a job for meteorologists (and for the Congress and public who fund us). As for the remaining 330 million of us, we can build resilience into every human activity – where and how we choose to live; where and how we grow our food, develop energy resources, and use water. We can reduce the footprint of our day-to-day activities and thereby slow the pace of environmental degradation. Four years from now, we can be better off in these respects than we are today. There’s great incentive to do better, from the most mercenary, self-serving of reasons to the noblest, highest motivations.

But at this inauguration, Americans shouldn’t be focused just inwardly, domestically. There’s a four-year global outlook as well. And so far as the weather itself is concerned, the story is pretty much the same – only on a bigger screen. The food, energy and water issues will be in even starker relief, especially visible in poorer parts of the world. Extremes of weather and climate will displace populations and foment geopolitical instability. Environmental degradation, much of it exported to poorer parts of the world by the richer nations, will continue. (These conditions will be worldwide, but because we’re so profoundly interconnected, they will affect all of us here in the United States.)

Unless.

For there’s uncertainty here as well – and again, the wild card is not the weather, but whether we make individual and national commitments to do better. Doing better in these respects is well within our means, requiring only fractions of a percent of U.S. and global GDP. What’s required, and accessible to us, is vision and will. In the process of doing better, in partnering with the rest of the world against a common set of threats and a corresponding set of opportunities, we can build prosperity for the world and tranquility for ourselves in the bargain.

By the way, the choice to do better, to do more, is an individual choice. We don’t have to ask anyone’s permission, or wait for some signal. We decide. We can encourage others to join us. In fact, this has been the hallmark of the U.S. meteorological community for more than 100 years. For virtually all of that period, the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting provides a yearly opportunity to huddle, take stock, and then springboard into another year of work advancing the observations, the science, and weather, water, and climate services. For the 4000 meteorologists who’ll be meeting in Seattle throughout this next week – it’ll be good to see you. Blessings and safe travels.

Okay! Let’s do this! The omens are good.

“In old days books were written by men [sic] of letters and read by the public. Nowadays books are written by the public and read by nobody.” – Oscar Wilde

 “That is a good book which is opened with expectation and closed with profit.” – Amos Bronson Alcott

We all struggle to find time to read – and especially to find the generous amounts of time required to read a book. Today’s culture and technology take us in the opposite direction. We swim around in a thick soup of information, fed to us in the form of small, bite-size quanta. A fact or figure here. A disconnected thought or idea there. The most important life-skill for the knowledge worker is to learn how to digest information and understanding in this form all the while stitching the bits and bytes into a coherent picture over the course of a day or year or lifetime. (All at accelerating speed, year-by-year.) Meantime, we’re coming to appreciate our desperate need in this process is to distinguish fact from fake, opinion from reality, life-giving opportunity from life-sucking distraction.

So Oscar Wilde’s observation looks spot-on today. So too the ruminations of Charles Darwin captured on the LOTRW masthead. Interestingly, their reflections were contemporaneous, made about 150 years ago, long before the arrival of today’s IT. Perhaps their thoughts are ageless; perhaps they were prompted simultaneously by the emergence of the Victorian internet – the telegraph – about that time.

Most of my reading is remedial. Perhaps this experience is universal. Seven billion people can write a lot of books when our backs are turned. It’s easy to fall behind, and then to belatedly discover books we wish we’d read earlier, sometimes years ago. For many, the chance to catch up on reading is an ancillary benefit of the Christmas season, alongside two larger opportunities – to reflect at year’s turn on our lives to date and any new directions we might like to take, and the annual spiritual renewal at the core of the event we celebrate.

In that spirit, here are three books that all pass the Amos Bronson Alcott test. All three bear a 2015 copyright; I had made a start into each earlier on, but then put them down and failed to get back to them until now (shame on me!). Reading them and finishing them up together, rather than separately, turned out to be felicitous. The whole proved greater than the sum of the parts.

Each book is a remarkable blend of extensive scholarship and marvelous story-telling (in non-fiction, the latter hinges necessarily on the former). Each was the spinoff from a Ph.D. thesis, suggesting that we can look forward to even richer works from the three authors going forward as their thinking matures and deepens.

Let’s start with

A Scientific Peak: how Boulder became a world center for space and atmospheric science, by Joseph P. Bassi (American Meteorological Society; 264 pp). Established in the 1850’s, Boulder, Colorado became the site for the University of Colorado a year after statehood, in 1877. But it was by no means foreordained that Boulder would become a world center for atmospheric research. Joe Bassi masterfully tells this story. He delves into the personalities, politics, pivotal moments and fateful decisions and weaves these into a larger national context – the influence of two World Wars, McCarthyism, and the corresponding changes in science policy (including, but not limited to, a shift from private funding for science to government support) – that led to today’s result. A real page-turner! Especially poignant for anyone like me, who arrived in Boulder in the 1960’s shortly after the events of the book but at a time when Walter Orr Roberts, Janet Roberts, Alan Shapley, and other principals were still active and on the scene. But you don’t have to have Boulder roots to profit from the book[1].

Next up is

Rational Action: The sciences of policy in Britain and America, 1940-1960, by William Thomas (MIT Press; 399 pp)[2]. For much of the period recounted in Mr. Bassi’s book, the relationship between scientists and the world were being reshaped by the exigencies of World War II. Mr. Thomas fills in some of that larger wartime- and postwar context. His subject is the blend of scientific disciplines that has come to be known as operations research (OR). OR got its start bringing to bear logic, observation, experiment, modeling and various branches of science and engineering on thorny and urgent questions of warfare, such as: what kind of firepower is most useful on military aircraft? Where should guns be placed, and how should they be used? How might the logistics supporting warfare be optimized? Etc. Mr. Thomas tells the story of the people drawn into this arena, their successes and failures, the rise of RAND and other think tanks after the War, and the extension of operations research into the Cold War. He chronicles the reach of OR into the civilian sector as well as the development of a theoretical basis for OR, and how that theory morphed into a subject for study in its own right.

Full disclosure? The book held a special magic for me. My father was a Princeton-educated Ph.D. algebraist. After the war he retrained himself in statistics and entered the field of OR, first working at the Pentagon, in the Navy’s Operational Evaluations Group, then back at Princeton, working with John Tukey and others, and eventually at Westinghouse. The stories Mr. Thomas tells spoke of people and events that had been part and parcel of dad’s dinner conversations, and eventually inspired my brother to get a Ph.D. in OR and build a distinguished career at Bell Labs. Brought back a lot of memories from those dinners and helped me connect with my memories of him, as well as the career my brother had.

Perhaps the most interesting thread throughout the book is the story of how OR went from humble, service-oriented origins (scientists doing their small bit to help a military in clear charge win the War) to a community investigating more abstract issues that could no longer be so directly tied to societal benefit, and a growing awareness that this last step required decisions and rationale outside the realm of science.

Which brings us to the third and final work

Masters of Uncertainty: Weather forecasters and the search for ground truth, by Phaedra Daipha (University of Chicago Press, 271 pp)[3]. Margaret Mead based her highly acclaimed work on years of field study in Samoa. For years, Jane Goodall observed the Kasakela chimpanzee community in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania, beginning in 1960. Perhaps Ms. Daipha didn’t foray so far from home as these exemplars. But by embedding herself in a New England NWS Forecast office for over thirty months off and on over a few years, she made a significant investment in time and attention that has paid off in a similar way, gaining a unique set of insights into the sociology of government weather forecasting, ranging from the engagement between forecaster and various publics, including but not limited to risk communication; the sociology of the forecast office, and the interaction between that office and the NWS hierarchy; and even the development of the weather forecast itself as a social construct. I’ve been in the field for years and yet each page of her wonderful book brought new insights and revelations. Much is being made these days of the importance of bringing the social science to bear on weather forecast development and use. This book closer to penetrating to the heart of the matter than anything I’ve read so far. And that’s before you get to the bits of the book that draw analogies to other professional fields such as medicine and finance.

A call to action.

“No two persons ever read the same book.” – Edmund Wilson

“A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it or offer your own version in return.” – Salman Rushdie

All good stuff! But it is the eve of 2017, and perhaps therefore a time for resolution-making. In light of Mr. Wilson’s observation, we might resolve to read a bit more – more broadly, and more extensively. And Mr. Rushdie encourages us read not just to understand the thinking of others, but to formulate thoughts of our own and share those with each other.

My prayer and expectation is that 2017 will bless you and me – each and every one of us.

________________________

[1] Here’s a link to a more thorough, better-written review. Incidentally, Professor Bassi makes no mention of his career as an officer in the U.S. Air Force; we owe him thanks for his years of service to the country.

[2] You can find a proper and more thoughtful review here.

[3] Couldn’t find a link to an independent review. Perhaps interested reader can supply one?

As the 2016-2017 transitional period in U.S. politics enters its final few weeks, the nation and the world search for hints and early insights into any coming changes in policy and national priorities. These run across the entirety of the national agenda, but close to home for LOTRW readers are questions about what lies ahead for natural resources (with oil and coal extraction heading the list), hazards policy (relatively speaking, a blank slate?), and environmental protection (air- and water quality, but above all the regulation of fossil fuel emissions and U.S. participation in related global agreements).

One notion overhanging much of the discussion – again, both domestic and global – is that the new administration may be less in the business of making policy for its own sake and more likely to mix policy formulation with deal-making than its predecessor. It’s entirely possible that this view exaggerates differences between the two administrations. In the realpolitik of today’s diplomacy, for example, policy goals are translated into discrete diplomatic steps that in turn are often accompanied by arms deals, by debt forgiveness, or by removal or imposition of economic and financial sanctions. But, putting that aside, it might be useful for all parties to consider what political deal-making (in-country and internationally) could look like when it comes to natural resources, hazards, and the environment.

Where to find such insights? Here’s a possible starting point. Three decades back, in a 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, Donald Trump (and co-author Tony Schwartz) provided an 11-step formula for business success (aka good deal-making)[1]:

Mr. Trumps’ thinking may well have moved on. And in finance, we’re often warned that “past performance doesn’t necessarily indicate future results.” But considering the source, the formula might be worth study and thought, by all parties: members of the incoming administration, members of Congress and staff, career civil servants, government contractors, NGO’s, and even the general public. The Trump/Schwartz list is long, and subject to diverse interpretations. What follows is an attempt to illustrate, through an example or two, how that framing might be used as a starting point for all participants in the policy process – whether anticipating what to expect in the years ahead, or influencing where things go, or for eventually evaluating the administration’s stewardship of its four-to-eight years. The hope is that you and many others will be find the list useful to hone your thinking, and goals, and decisions over the period.

Here are three questions for purposes of this post:

1. What would it look like to apply this frame to natural-resource-, hazards- and environmental policies?
2. In such light, how might past U.S. performance in this arena be judged?
3. What differences – especially opportunities for improvement – might lie ahead if this framing or something like it were to be adopted?

Here goes:

1. Think big. The book uses an example of forswearing a mere hotel in favor of a combined hotel-gambling casino, with its much larger revenue and profit stream. It’s similarly possible to think big about environmental issues. Following its own advice, the new administration might consider tackling the threefold problem of resources, hazards, and environment as a unified whole instead of piecemeal. Alternatively, it might set as a goal “making Earth great again.” It might seek to return the whole to an Edenic-quality as opposed to simply seeking to minimize environmental degradation, hazard losses, etc., or allocating small areas of land and sea protected status as recent presidents have done. Think big? Nothing would do more to put the Trump presidency on the map than a successful initiative along such lines.

2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself. In the book, Mr. Trump asserts that his reputation back then notwithstanding, he’s no gambler. In that case, the new administration would do well to recognize the successes of the Obama administration and its predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. For thirty years the U.S. has been focused like a laser on working with other nations to minimize fossil-fuel emissions, stem the loss of habitat and biodiversity, and slow environmental degradation. These efforts have established a foundation – of science, of international collaborations and commitments, and more – to build on and to realize that desired upside potential. To fail to capture the progress already made in favor of trying some wholly new approach is to take a big and unnecessary gamble.

3. Maximize your options. Mr. Trump stresses that most ideas for deals fall through. He argues it’s therefore important to have a large number of projects at different stages of development and fruition underway at any moment. And once a given deal gets the green light, it’s then equally important to develop numerous options for following through. If any single one encounters a roadblock, it’s still possible to make progress. In the present application, this would mean, possibly, exploring the full spectrum of future energy sources, not just fossil fuels. It would mean looking at green infrastructure to build community-level resilience to floods, drought, and other natural hazards. It would suggest fostering support nationwide and worldwide for multiple place-based, grassroots environmental initiatives, rather than focusing on a handful of top-down, command-and-control approaches.

4. Know your market. The 2016 election results could be interpreted as affirming Upton Sinclair’s insight: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Case in point: environmental planks in party platforms resonated primarily with the well-to-do; political opponents had succeeded in framing environmental protection as competing with jobs. Yet the evidence tells a different story. In the United States and worldwide, the poor and disadvantaged suffer more immediately and more severely from environmental degradation than their richer counterparts. Political leaders not just in the United States but worldwide could use help in expanding the market for environmental protection from an elite few to the broader populace. The coming administration might be uniquely positioned to do just that.

5. Use your leverage. In part, that’s because the contrarian theory operates in politics. For example, Richard Nixon was able to recognize the People’s Republic of China when George McGovern, had he been elected in 1972, would have found it almost impossible to do so. In part, though it’s because Mr. Trump appears to recognize just what leverage is available to the leader of the free world. The big challenge for him, as for his predecessors, will be to avoid squandering it – through either misplaced caution or in pursuit of small, self-serving (versus think–big) ends.

6. Enhance your location. Remember the real estate adage: location, location, location? In his 1987 book, Mr. Trump tells us that one of his biggest successes flew in the face of this advice. He saw a plot of under-used, under-valued land in Manhattan and through development and marketing transformed it into a prime location. Imagine (again, thinking-big) enhancing not just a single location, but the entire Earth itself. Imagine, not just exporting pollution to out-of-sight-out-of-mind locations (mining lithium in the Andes, growing palm oil in Indonesia, etc.), but reducing pollution worldwide, improving everyone’s neighborhood.

7. Get the word out.

8. Fight back. 

9. Deliver the goods. Interestingly, at this point in his 1987 narrative, Donald Trump used what he saw as the negative example of two presidents. He dismissed President Carter as failing to deliver on what he’d promised: “The American people caught on pretty quickly that Carter couldn’t do the job, and he lost in a landslide when he ran for re-election.” He suggested that the jury was still out on President Reagan: “Ronald Reagan is another example. He is so smooth and effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile.” In light of those comments, and with an eye to the judgment of history, the president-elect has incentive to deliver. Environmental intelligence and environmental risk management offer an opportunity unique with respect to (1) ease of accomplishment, (2) positive legacy, and (3) low cost (conforming to element #10 below)

10. Contain the costs
11. Have fun

This expounding on the list of elements that make for a successful deal as they apply to natural-resource, hazard, environmental issues is quite incomplete, but you get the idea. Hopefully, you also get the second idea, which is far more important. The real purpose of this post is not to get your buy-in to any or all of the specifics. Instead, it’s to encourage you to reflect afresh on that 30-year-old list. Please identify your own takeaway, develop your own list of opportunities, maybe modify the list of eleven by subtracting one or two or adding a couple of principles or elements of your own. Contribute your thoughts to the national dialog.

Who knows? Maybe (in line with element #11) there’ll be some fun along the way.

_________________________________

[1] Only the headings are provided here; the book offers explanatory text and supporting examples of each bit of the formula.