Weather and Society Watch
Guest Editorial**

Station Scientists: Overcoming the Boundaries Between Meteorological and Societal Impacts Research
by Daniel Nietfeld*

Suppose an automobile manufacturer is focused on researching the development of a new car with the fastest, most efficient engine possible. The company knows it might have some success selling the car based solely on its technology. But the company understands that, while making a faster, more efficient car might be an important goal, it needs to work closely with drivers to ensure that the car meets their needs beyond just speed and efficiency. The driver must understand how to operate the car. This car manufacturer knows the importance of the human dimension. Similarly, if the weather industry has a goal of protecting life and property, the human dimension is a critical component.

Within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS), there are “station scientists” found at each of the Warning and Forecast Offices (WFOs), as well as at the River Forecast Centers (RFCs), and at national centers such as the Storm Prediction Center, the Aviation Weather Center, and the Tropical Prediction Center. Most of these dedicated scientists have the title of Science and Operations Officer (SOO), except in the river forecast centers, where they have the title of Development and Operations Hydrologist (DOH). Logic would argue that if there is research to be done that involves the human dimension of protecting lives and property, good science is paramount to solving problems. It would stand to reason then, that the station scientist would be the ideal person to lead any research activities that are aimed at solving these problems.

However, the logic just described often quickly runs into the cultural road block of tradition because of the imaginary walls that separate the notion of an atmospheric problem, such as understanding tornadogenesis, from the notion of a human decision problem such as understanding tornado warning response. Both are very legitimate and highly important problems. Both take a lot of research. Both require good science using the scientific method and research techniques that ensure scientifically sound conclusions. But despite these similarities, the culture of traditional weather research has etched boundaries in the field that have kept meteorology in and human dimensional components out.

These cultural boundaries are a scientific shame because a station scientist should be in position to lead research efforts that need to be addressed, despite the nature of the equation that is being derived, or the survey results that are being interpreted. After all, if the station scientist isn’t in a position to lead these efforts, the entire staff is crippled in doing that work.

For example, if a forecaster wants to do a study to determine how various outdoor warning siren policies are interpreted throughout a community, the project requires expertise in scientific techniques that will enable the forecaster to reach scientifically sound conclusions. The station scientist, then, is the critical person to assist the forecaster in that project, providing instruction, guidance, advice, and fostering collaboration with outside partners. Structurally, that project could have a similar outline to another forecaster’s study designed to examine hundreds of winter storms for the purpose of learning the role of the jet stream in heavy snow production. In the later scenario, the role of the station scientist is clear, and he or she is the natural “research expert” who would be involved in that project.
Reality in most operational weather institutions is very different, however. Unfortunately, the invisible walls that separate meteorological research and societal impact research do exist, and they are sometimes dauntingly tall. Ironically, some research that is being done or has been done was intended and assumed to be pure meteorological research; however, the implications and conclusions appear to be more oriented toward societal impacts research. For example, some studies that have been done to show the use of ensemble forecast data concluded with results that at least indirectly explained human decision support. In other words, the invisible walls and boundaries are often crossed, without the researcher—or station scientist—realizing it. But the walls do need to come down, and they need to come down permanently. Otherwise, an egregious waste of societal impact research potential will continue.

Operational forecast offices have the unique advantages of being close to the people who are impacted by weather events, while also having extensive research resources available to them. The potential cross-discipline meteorological-social science studies that could be done, especially in cooperation with other research entities, are infinite. Therefore, it is quite critical that station scientists, in the near future, be prepared to help lead these societal impact research efforts, overcoming a culture that historically has not allowed them to develop such projects.

If tradition indeed created the culture that inhibits this mentality, the tradition itself needs to mature. And there is hope! For example, as of the fall of 2009, four NWS WFO SOOs have been through the Weather and Society * Integrated Studies (WAS*IS) program, which was created to comprehensively and sustainably integrate social science into meteorological research and practice. Like many instances of culture change, the earlier a paradigm shift occurs in the weather enterprise, the higher the likelihood that the resulting cultural changes will be successful and permanent.

One way to accomplish this early paradigm shift is to promote the entrance of people into the weather industry who have not inherited the culture of invisible walls. We need to strive for foundational education that incorporates societal impacts thinking into the curriculum. Students entering a college program who are pursuing a degree in weather should have the opportunity to be trained in assessing and understanding the societal impacts of weather. Students should be able to learn about the weather while simultaneously learning how society is impacted by the weather, as part of a holistic approach.

It isn’t that hard to imagine the day when a student might earn a Bachelor of Science degree in the Societal Impacts of Weather. After all, there seems to be a natural demand. There seem to be as many people who are interested in the impacts of a winter storm as there are people who are interested in the winter storm itself. A few graduate programs are beginning to embrace the concept of this educational framework, and hopefully this trend will continue, eventually whittling down the debilitating walls.

For whatever reason, the paradigm of traditional disciplines has resulted in a detrimental gap that must be bridged. New forecast products continue to be designed by meteorologists without complimentary research on users’ understanding of those forecast products, but they don’t have to be (nor should they be). There have been some recent efforts in this direction that are evidence of improvement, such as the involvement of the Social Science Woven into Meteorology program at the National Weather Center and the University of Oklahoma in the development of the NWS Next Generation Warning Tool. But this type of work must continue.

The relationship between weather and society seems just as important as the relationship between a car and its driver.
A station scientist needs to be prepared to look at all of the research problems that may result in the protection of life and property. Not being able to do this imposes a crippling limitation on the research capacity within the operational forecasting arena, and beyond. This editorial is a plea to the policy makers who can help continue the paradigm shift towards weather and society, for the benefit of all. And finally, it is a plea to existing station scientists to look beyond the equations of motion, and consider the components of emotion within the realm of research and science.

*Daniel Nietfeld (dan.nietfeld@noaa.gov) is the science and operations officer (SOO) for the Omaha, Neb. National Weather Service (NWS) forecast office. He is also an adjunct instructor at the University of Nebraska, where he teaches a class on severe storms.

**The views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the National Weather Service.

Photo credit:

Photo 1: A double rainbow colors a hail shaft on the backside of a supercell in Fowler, Colo. (Photo by Scott Blair)