how some nonmeleorological professionals view meteorology and weather forecasting

Transcription

1 how some nonmeleorological professionals view meteorology and weather forecasting Abstract T h e results of a questionnaire designed to gather information on how nonmeteorological scientists and engineers view meteorology and weather forecasting are summarized in this paper. T h e respondents were from two organizations, Texas A8cM University and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the first representing the academic community and the latter the engineering community. While there were some differences between the groups, in most cases answers expressed in the opinionnaire by the two groups were essentially identical. T h e results revealed the following: Approximately threefourths of the respondents use meteorological data and/or weather forecasts in their profession; the meaning of probability forecasts is very unclear with only 3% indicating the correct answer; television is the main source of weather information; approximately half of the respondents had never heard of the Global Atmospheric Research Program; and the opinion was almost unanimous that satellites had contributed significantly to weather observations and/or forecasts. Also, the results indicated a number of other "problem" areas where some improvements are desire. Introduction Meteorologists who work closely with other scientists and engineers on problems of an interdisciplinary nature often are called upon for advice and counsel when atmospheric conditions are involve This is particularly true in the space, marine, and aeronautical sciences, agriculture, and civil engineering. In addition, many other disciplines utilize atmospheric data as well as meteorological services to some degree. If any group of scientists and engineers is to function as a team, it is incumbent upon each person to become informed, at least to some degree, about certain aspects of each discipline involve In most instances, an in-depth knowledge in a discipline other than one's own is not required in order for him to be a valuable member of the team. However, without a knowledge of basic fundamentals of at least one discipline outside his own, the potential contributions to the problem by a member of a team may be greatly limite 974 J a m e s R. Scoggins Texas A&M University College Station and William W. Vaughan Aerospace Environment Division, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala. In order to achieve maximum effectiveness as a member of a team working on interdisciplinary problems, a meteorologist must not only become acquainted with other disciplines involved, but also must see that the people representing other disciplines become acquainted with meteorology to the extent that effective communication between himself and other members of the team is possible. It is recognized that most scientists and engineers are somewhat familiar with meteorology through their exposure to various news media, from personal daily observations of the weather, and other numerous and varied sources. Because of personal interests, and the impact of the weather and the atmosphere on the activities of each individual, it is natural that varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere exist among professionals. If the meteorologist is to achieve maximum effectiveness as a member of a team, he must know to what extent his colleagues understand certain aspects of atmospheric processes, limitations in atmospheric data, accuracy and basis of forecasts, et Once the meteorologist has this understanding, he is then in a better position to communicate with his colleagues. This was one of the principal factors which motivated the authors to conduct the survey described in this article. Publication of the survey results is made in the belief it will be of value to other meteorologists. T h e atmosphere is a complicated machine which is driven by heat from the Sun. Because of the number of variables involved, interaction between layers, and sparse data networks over much of the globe, particularly over the oceans, weather forecasts for some areas are difficult to make at best, and often are based on incomplete information. T h e meteorologist must provide an adequate interpretation of weather forecasts and data to nonmeteorologists so they can understand and make use of them. Data from a questionnaire designed to gather information on how nonmeteorological scientists and engineers view selected aspects of meteorology and weather forecasting are presented in this paper. T h e results suggest a number of areas where communication between meteorologists and other scientists and engineers could be improve Vol 52, No. 0, October 97

2 Bulletin American Meteorological Society 2. The questionnaire and respondents The questionnaire on meteorology and weather forecasting was disseminated to a wide variety of scientists and engineers (all nonmeteorologists) at Texas A&M University and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The respondents were chosen at random; i.e., without regard to any specific set of criteria, such as extent of training, experience, et, outside the meteorological staffs of the two organizations. Response from the solicited groups was 90% from Marshall Space Flight Center and 85% from Texas A&M University. The results of a sample survey such as this one may be somewhat different in other geographical areas and for different organizations. However, the authors believe the results represented below of the understanding of professional scientific and engineering people are generally representative. The questionnaire is given in the ap- TABLE. Fields of spt pendix. Each respondent was asked to indicate the best answer in his opinion for each question. 3. Background and classication of respondents A summary of the fields of specialization of those who responded to the questionnaire is given in Table. The respondents represent a wide variety of disciplines, primarily in the physical sciences, agriculture, and engineering. The results are presented from the respondents at Texas A&M University (TAMU), Marshall Space Flight Center (), and combined TAMU and. The respondents at TAMU represent a cross section of the faculty, while the respondents represent a cross section of scientists and engineers from that organization. The average number of years of experience of the respondents was 8 years with the educational level at TAMU higher than that at in terms of academic degrees. 75% of the respondents at ization of respondents. Texas A&M University (TAMU) Agriculture No. Engineering No. Basic sciences Agriculture Agronomy Biochemical genetics Botany Brush control Food service Forest genetics Genetics Horticulture Nematology Plant biochemistry Plant ecology Plant pathology Plant physiology Range land ecology Range science Soil chemistry and mineralogy Soil physics Soil science Weed science Wildlife ecology Wildlife science Wood science Aerospace 9 Architectural Civil 20 Electrical Environmental Geological Instrument Marine Mechanical 0 Petroleum 5 Sub-total 50 Geosciences No. Geography 2 Geological oceanography 2 Geology 9 Geophysics Physical oceanography 6 Sub-total 20 Biology Botany Chemistry Mathematics Zoology Sub-total Other Advertising design Applied mechanics Architecture Computer science Ecology Landscape architecture Marine transportation Marine chemistry Sub-total Total Sub-total 48 Marshall Space Flight Center () Engineering No. Basic sciences No. Other No. Aerospace 9 Chemistry 2 Applied mechanics Ceramic Mathematics 5 Computer systems Civil Physics 6 Electronics Electrical 5 Engineering physics Industrial Sub-total 3 Geophysics Mechanical 2 Mechanical vibration and acoustics Production Sub-total 6 Sub-total 30 Total 49 Grand total

3 Vol. 52, No. 0, October 97 TAMU had earned Ph.D. degrees while only 8% held such degrees at. 7% of the respondents at held only bachelor degrees as compared with only 6% in this category at TAMU. There was no clearly preferred period between the years 950 and 970 when the respondents at TAMU or received their degrees. However, more of those at TAMU received their degrees during the last 0 years and the majority in the group from received their degrees 5 or more years ago. The respondents at TAMU have an average of 8 years of college, while those at average of 5 years. 4. Results The results of the questionnaire are presented in summary form in Table 2. The question number refers to the corresponding question in the questionnaire; the numbers in the table refer to the number of respondents answering the question in the respective category, while those in parentheses are the corresponding percentages. Each question will be discussed in the order in which it appears in the questionnaire. Discussion of the results will refer to the combined respondents from TAMU and unless otherwise note In this corn- Table 2. Results of questionnaire on meteorology and weather forecasting. Source Source Question number (see Appendix) TAMU Combined TAMU & Question number (see Appendix) TAMU Combined TAMU &. a. e. 2. a. 9* (6) 32 (67) 23 (62) 27 (8) (23) 38 (9) 28 (9) 5 (0) 33 (7) () (2) 2 () Total 50 (0) 48 (00) 99 (99) 32 (2) (23) 43 (22) 76 (5) 29 (60) 05 (53) 42 (28) 8 (7) 50 (25) 7. e. f. 8. a. 2 () 6 (4) (2) 4 (2) 7 (4) Total 49 (00) 49 (00) 98 (0) 5 (0) 2 (76) 5 (3) 6 () 8 (7) 32 (67) 6 (3) 2 44 (73) 7 (4) 22 () Total 48 (00) 48 (0) 96 (00) 3. a. e. Total 50 (00) 48 (00) 98 (00) 9. a. 5 (0) 7 (9) 5 (3) 06 (72) 37 (76) 43 (72) 3 (9) 5 (8) 0. a. (8) 6 (2) 7 (9) Total 48 (0) 49 (00) 97 (0) 43 (29) 7 (4) 50 (25) 07 (7) 42 (86) 49 (75) Total 50 (00) 49 (00) 99 (00) 72 (50) 8 (39) 90 (48) 2 () 2 () 3 (9) 7 (5) 20 () 56 (39) 2 (46) 77 (4) 4. a. 90 (60) 9 (3) 0 (7) 6 (33) 2 (43) 7 (4) 5 (0) 47 (24) (56) 26 (3) 5 (8). a. Total 43 (99) 46 (00) 89 (0) 64 (43) 86 (57) 3 (27) 36 (73) 77 (39) 22 (6) Total 50 (0) 49 (00) 99 (0) Total 50 (00) 49 (00) 99, (00) 5. a. 6. a. 0 (7) (2) (6) 8 (5) 3 (6) (6) 3 (87) 43 (88) 74 (87) () Total 50 (00) 49 (00) 99 (0) 23 (5) 3 (6) 26 (3) 0 (74) 4 (84) 5 (76) 7 () 5 (0) 22 () 2. a. 3. a. 72 (48) 77 (52) 29 (59) 20 (4) 0 (5) 97 (49) Total 49 (00) 49 (00) 98 (00) 78 (52) 2 () 6 () 53 (36) 35 (73) (23) 3 (57) 2 () 8 (9) 64 (32) Total 49 (00) 48 (00) 97 (99) 7. a. Total 50 (00) 49 (00) 99 (00) 4. a. 0 (7) (2) (6) 4 (8) 7 (4) 4 (9) 8 (7) 22 () 4 (77) 33 (67) 47 (74) 6 (2) 37 (9) (7) (2) 2 (6) 05 (7) 4 (84) 46 (74) () (2) () Total 48 (00) 49 (00) 97 (00) 976 * Number of respondents answering in respective category. Percentages are given in parentheses.

4 Bulletin American Meteorological Society bined group, 99 completed questionnaires were received, 50 from T A M U a n d 49 from. Of the 99, 62% had no training in meteorology; 36% had some training as pilot, navigator, et, or one or more college courses but less than a B.S. degree; and only 3% completed a B.S. or higher degree in meteorology. About half of the respondents (53%) used meteorological data and/or weather forecasts in their profession occasionally, 22% did not use such information at all, and 25% used it frequently. It is interesting to note that 28% at T A M U used meteorological data and/or weather forecasts frequently in their profession as compared with 7% at. This may be due to the fact that 30% of the T A M U respondents are associated with the field of agriculture. T h e respondents, however, represent a group of highly educated engineers and scientists with little training in meteorology, but with over threefourths of them using meteorological data and/or weather forecasts in their profession. Their background in science, and their dealings and interests in meteorology, have provided them with a certain amount of knowledge about the atmosphere. This is indicated by the fact that, from among the choices given, 72% selected as the most important contributor to forecasts the knowledge of information on atmospheric conditions from near the Earth's surface to an altitude approaching 00,000 ft. T h e exact meaning of a forecast in terms of probability often is not clear even to professional meteorologists (Murphy and Winkler, 97). It is unclear also to the respondents as indicated by the large number (56%) who indicated that a forecast issued for a 20% chance of showers during a given afternoon for a specified city meant there was a 20% chance that showers would occur somewhere in the area (within, say, 00 mi) but not necessarily in the city. T h e correct meaning of the statement according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-National Weather Service (NWS) is a 20% chance that showers will occur at a given place in the area and time period covered by the forecast. Only 3% of the respondents indicated the correct answer to this question. A large percentage (87) indicated that weather forecasts were intended primarily for the benefit of the general public, and 76% indicated forecasts were satisfactory. Only 3% indicated that weather forecasts issued by the National Weather Service for a period of to 2 days were unsatisfactory while % indicated they were of no importance to them. About three-fourths (74%) of the respondents indicated that television was their main source of information for daily weather forecasts issued by the National Weather Service. Morning and afternoon newspapers had a surprisingly low percentage of 0, radio, telephone 2, a n d other sources 4. It appears that T V is by far the most used single source for weather forecasts. However, a similar survey conducted in an area where automotive commuting time is 30 minutes or more might reveal a significantly larger dependence upon radio as a source of information on weather forecasts. T h e subject of a reliable "Two-Week Weather Forecast" as a goal of meteorological research has been a subject of concern to some meteorologists in recent years. It is interesting that nearly three-fourths (73%) of the respondents indicated they interpreted such a forecast to be valid for a generalized local area with much less detail than current daily forecasts. 2% interpreted the statement to mean a detailed day-to-day forecast for a specific location in similar wordage as daily forecasts in the newspaper, while % interpreted the statement to mean a generalized forecast of global circulation patterns and trends. Only 4% indicated such a forecast could be interpreted only by trained meteorologists. In relation to forecasts of rain, severe weather, wind, et, in the last 0 years, three-fourths of the respondents indicated they had noticed significant improvement, while 25% said they had not. Regarding the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), nearly half (48%) of the respondents had never heard of the program (50% at T A M U and 39% at ) and 4% thought it was an excellent program which should produce significant solutions to forecast problems (39% at T A M U and 46% at ). Only % felt it was too complex, and % felt it would not provide any real solutions to forecast problems. In response to the question regarding whether or not additional data on the atmospheric sciences (e.g., statistics) would be of value in their professional work, only 39% said yes, while 6% said no. T h e percentage in the two groups differed considerably with T A M U answering "yes" 43% and "no" 57%; the percentages for the group were 27 and 73, respectively. (The group's response to questions, 2 and 3 may have been influenced by the fact that it has an active organizational element which provides considerable services and data on atmospheric conditions.) Approximately half (5%) of the respondents had at some time consulted a professional meteorologist in connection with a problem in their work, while 49% had not done so. More of the respondents at (59%) had consulted a professional meteorologist than at T A M U (48%). T h e majority (57%) of the respondents (52% at T A M U and 73% at ) had never used nationally archived atmospheric data records in their work, and of the remaining 43% who had used the records, 32% (36% at T A M U and 23% at ) felt the records were generally acceptable and usable for their purpose, while 9% said the records were a disappointment. Only % indicated that the records were in excellent form and adequate. On the subject of weather satellites, nearly threefourths (74%) of the respondents expressed the opinion that weather satellites have contributed significantly to both observations and forecasts of the weather. 9% expressed the opinion that satellites had contributed 977

5 V o l. 52, No. 0, October 97- significantly to observations of weather only, 6% to forecasts only, and % to neither observations nor forecasts. 5. Summary T h e questionnaire designed to gather information on how nonmeteorological scientists view certain aspects of meteorology and weather forecasting was disseminated to a wide variety of scientists and engineers at Texas A8cM University (TAMU) and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (). T h e respondents included 50 members of the faculty at T A M U and 49 scientists and engineers at. Of this group of 99 respondents, 36% had some training in meteorology but only 3% had completed a B.S. or higher degree in this fiel T h e results from the questionnaire reveal the following major points: a) Approximately three-fourths of the respondents use meteorological data and/or weather forecasts in their profession; b) the meaning of probability forecasts is very unclear, with only 3% of the respondents answering this question correctly; c) three-fourths of the respondents are satisfied with forecasts issued by the National Weather Service; d) three-fourths of the respondents indicated that television was their main source of weather information, with newspapers and radio account for 2% and all other sources 4%; e) three-fourths of the respondents interpret a two-week forecast to represent one for a generalized local area, with much less detail than current daily forecasts, while only 2% interpreted it to mean a forecast for a specific location expressed in the same terms as daily forecasts; f) three-fourths of the respondents had noted an improvement over the last 0 years in weather forecasts issued by the National Weather Service; g) approximately half of the respondents had never heard of the Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP), and 4% thought it was an excellent program which should lead to significant results; h) 39% of the respondents said that additional meteorological data were desired for use in their professions, and of those who have used the records, the majority said they were satisfactory; and i) 99% of the respondents expressed the opinion that weather satellites had contributed significantly to either observations and/or forecasts of weather. In brief, the results of the questionnaire point out three major areas which should be given serious consideration. These are: ) the meaning of probability forecasts, 2) importance of T V weather programs, and 3) the dissemination of information regarding extensive meteorological programs such as GARP. T h e results also reveal a number of other potential "problem'' areas where some improvements are desire It would be interesting to see the response to this or a similar survey by nonprofessional groups. This paper was not prepared with the intent of defending or criticizing any meteorological program, but rather to gather views from non-meteorological professionals on a sample of meteorological topics. However, 978 one reviewer's comment may be of considerable interest, since it may well represent the view of a significant minority, or perhaps majority, of meteorologists. T h e comment made is as follows: " T h e authors convey the impression that whereas satellites have been effectively 'sold,' GARP has not. Public relations aspects aside, I am not aware of any evidence that satellites have improved forecasts of any range in the central and eastern United States, and I doubt that any exists. Without suggesting that satellites be shot down, I must confess to some discomfort over their unqualified acceptance by nonmeteorologists; those birds may come home to roost. So far as GARP is concerned the authors seem unaware that more than a few of their peers see it as an ill-advised enterprise, almost certain neither to provide improved forecasts directly enough to produce an association in the nonmeteorological mind, nor to provide improvement as effectively as other ventures toward which comparable amounts of resources might be applie" Reference Murphy, Allan H., and R o b e r t L. Winkler, 97: Forecasters and probability forecasts: some current problems. Bull Amer. Meteor. So, 52, APPENDIX Questionnaire on Meteorology and Weather Forecasting. Indicate the category which most closely describes your training in meteorology. a. None. Pilot, navigator, or similar training in which meteorology was covere One or more college courses but less than a BS degree. BS degree or equivalent. e. Graduate work. 2. Indicate the extent to which you use meteorological data and/or weather forecasts in your profession. a. Not at all. Occasionally. Frequently. 3. A weather forecast is derived: a. Almost entirely from a pictorial representation such as shown on TV. Almost entirely from a computer solution of the hydrodynamic equations. From atmospheric conditions from Earth's surface to an altitude approaching 00,000 ft. From atmospheric conditions below 0,000 ft without regard to conditions above this altitude. e. Opinion of the forecaster based on his experience. 4. When a forecast is issued for a 20% chance of showers during a given afternoon for a specified city, this means:

6 Bulletin American Meteorological Society a. There is a 20% chance that showers will occur within the city limits. There is a 20% chance that showers will occur somewhere in the area (within, say, 00 miles) but not necessarily in the city. There is a 20% chance that showers will occur at a given place, e.g., your house. That the forecaster is only 20% sure he thinks showers will occur somewhere in the area. 5. Weather forecasts are intended primarily: a. For use in specific disciplinary areas such as agriculture or civil engineering. For use in aviation. For the benefit of the general publi For use by other government agencies. 6. For your use, forecasts issued by the National Weather Service (Weather Bureau) for a period of to 2 days are: a. Unsatisfactory. Satisfactory. Of no importance to you. 7. Indicate your main source of information for the daily weather forecast issued by the National Weather Service (Weather Bureau): a. Morning newspaper. Television. Afternoon newspaper. e. Telephone. Radio. f. Other 8. A reliable "two-week weather forecast" has been stated in the news media as a goal of meteorological research. What do you interpret the "two-week weather forecast" statement to mean? a. A detailed day-to-day forecast for a specific location in similar wordage as daily forecasts in the newspaper? A generalized local area forecast with much less detail than current daily forecasts? A statement on expected atmospheric conditions interpretable only by trained meteorologists? A generalized forecast of global circulation patterns and trends? 9. Have you noticed a significant improvement over the past ten years in forecasts of rain, severe weather, winds, et? a. No. Yes. 0. The newspapers, magazines, and some professional journals have carried articles in recent months about a Global Atmospheric Research Program. Which best describes your reaction? a. Never heard of the program. Feel it is too complex. Fine idea, but do not think it will provide any real solutions to forecast problems. Excellent program which should produce significant solutions to forecast problems.. Would additional data on atmospheric conditions, e.g., statistics, be of value in your professional work? a. Yes. No. 2. Have you ever consulted a meteorologist in connection with a problem in your work (other than just to ask for a local weather forecast)? a. Yes. No. 3. In using nationally archived atmospheric data records, what has been your reaction to the data recorded? a. Never used data. Records in excellent form and adequate. Records were a disappointment. Records were generally acceptable and usable for purpose. 4. In your opinion, weather satellites have contributed significantly to: a. Observations of weather. Forecasting of weather. Both a and Neither a nor necrology Kenneth Antrim Beck Kenneth A. Beck died suddenly on 7 May 97 at the Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, Pa. He was an actuarial consultant for the firm of Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby, of which he was also a partner. He was a graduate of the William Penn Charter School, Havorford College where he majored in mathematics, and New York University from which he received a master's degree in meteorology in 942. During the Second World War he served in the U. S. Army Air Corps as a meteorologist in Africa and the Mideast. Mr. Beck became a member of the AMS in 94, and during his career, also belonged to the Conference of Actuaries in Public Practice and the American Academy of Actuaries. In addition to his actuarial and meteorological activities, Mr. Beck was a vestryman and secretary to the vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd of Germantown, Pa., and a lay reader in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. He is survived by his wife, Phyllis; two daughters, Mrs. Russell Beck, and Elaine; three sons, Alan, Gordon, and Stephen; two grandchildren; and a brother. His last address was 085 Huntington R, Abington, Pa