Thursday, May 2, 2024

News Feed Comments

The importance of communication skills in the National Weather Service

June 20, 2014 Filed under Blog, Featured, Potpourri 

300px-US-NationalWeatherService-Logo.svg_

As part of an online discussion forum, Wes Browning, Meteorologist in Charge of the National Weather Service Forecast Office in St. Louis, had this to say about the importance of communication skills.

…as an NWS hiring official, I’d like to point out the critical importance of communications skills and training in operational emergency management (NIMS). As Dave Parsons pointed out “communication as a minor and internship can help land a position in broadcasting”, however those skills are extremely important today in the NWS, as decision support services (DSS) is becoming increasingly important. At WFO St. Louis, we routinely provide official decision support to a variety of Emergency Managers. As an example, there were 5 events going on simultaneously last weekend alone for which we provided critical information during ongoing severe weather. At the request of local Emergency Managers, I am currently making final arrangements together with WFO Kansas City to deploy 2 of my staff to support the Missouri State Fair (350,000 attendance over 11 days last year). As we have seen more and more DSS success stories over the past several years at WFO St. Louis, demands for these services are increasing, and those applicants that cross my desk with training in effective communication will definitely have an edge.

order at Amazon.com

Comments

3 Responses to “The importance of communication skills in the National Weather Service”
  1. Brian Curran says:

    Inspired by CAD III 🙂 …

    SCT TSRA WL DVLP ALG H8 CDFNT ERLY THIS AFTN AS PVA ALF WL CAUSE WDSPRD UVV. SFC CVNGNCE AND UPR DIFFLUENCE AT H3 WL COMB TO RMV CAP AND TRIGGER WDSPRD TSRA AHD OF DRYLN AFT 00Z. AFT FROPA…STG CYCLGN ALF AND NE FLO AT SFC WL INCR LL CAA AND CHG PRECIP OVR TO A MIX OF FZRA AND IP FM NW TO SE AFT MDNGT. CLRG AND CD TMRW AND TMRW NGT WITH WRMG FCST SAT AS UPR TROF MVS E AND UPR HGTS INCR. ON SUN PTCLDY AND WRM AS SFC WNDS INCR TO NR ADV LVLS AHD OF NXT SHRTWV TROF.

    Yep, NWS forecasters still write area forecast discussions (AFDs) the old school way, back when the LFM was the latest and greatest model! As a young pup I learned to write AFDs (then called state forecast discussions, or SFDs) using the “forecast funnel” technique. Beginning with planetary scale features, I would work down through synoptic, meso-alpha, -beta, -gamma, and so on downscale all the way to quantum effects, then back up to partly cloudy and mild with a 20% chance of rain. Good service? I thought so then, but I do not now.

    Here’s why: I can’t prove this without having the web stats, but I suspect that the AFD is the most widely-read product the NWS routinely produces. And instead of being used as an interoffice communication tool as originally intended, the SFD/AFD has evolved into a wide-ranging explanation of current and expected weather and impacts to a diverse audience.

    NWS mets must write plainly and clearly, focusing on what is important and not on the next forecast period. The writing style must change because most mets think linearly. Today, tonight, tomorrow, etc. was how we were taught to think because the zone forecast product (ZFP) was our flagship product. I’ve seen too many times the tendency to “bury the lead” by writing a few paragraphs on clear and mild followed by a poorly-written and poorly-framed meteorological discussion on the snowstorm that’ll bury Central City with a foot of snow. As an emergency manager or a fire weather dispatcher, why should I read through a couple hundred words of fluff before getting to the screaming story of the day? As the writing styles improve, so too will the verbal communications skills. It will take time and, more importantly, wise hiring practices.

    Wes is spot on in his assessment of the importance of communication in an evolving NWS. As the NWS evolves away from a content provider to a content interpreter, both the message and the delivery must change. But how? How do we teach young (and old!) forecasters the importance of writing and speaking clearly and cleanly without using hedge words and jargon? How do we stress the importance of stressing the significant threat(s) up front and center and in terms an emergency manager can understand? How do we learn the Zen of “less is more” vice the Western “death by Powerpoint”? Nobody will give a flip if you really understand what a thermally-direct transverse ageostrophic circulation does, but if you let the EM community, LEOs, the media, and others interested in significant weather know that, by 3 pm, a line of thunderstorms will develop west of here, and by 6 pm, we’re confident that severe weather will impact Central City with 70 mph winds and golf ball hail, then you’re providing a service!

    As meteorologists in an evolving NWS, we’ll need not only improved communication skills but also an increased awareness of the societal significance our forecasts and warnings has to diverse populations. I am not optimistic that NWS training will be sufficient to nudge this paradigm shift. Rather, it’ll be wise hiring officials like Wes who will select folks with a BS in meteorology and a MS in emergency management or communications over someone with “just” a Ph.D in meteorology. Eventually, momentum will move the message. Hire the attitude and train the skills.

  2. Anita Silverman says:

    I have been with the National Weather Service for over 25 years and my Area Forecast Discussions used to look like this.

    I agree with the point that Wes made. Communication skills are very important. I was always told “you can have the best forecast in the world, but it won’t mean anything if you can’t get the message out” Now with DSS we are giving more and more detail than we ever. (I still wonder at times about our skill at this time and space resolution, but that is another topic.)

    Forecasters get little-to-no on the job training on communications. The only module we were required to complete was “Clear Weather Writing” as part of intern training. I have since taken other training but it was all voluntary.

    A Brian said, the AFD used to be for internal coordination. Now it is one of the most popular products we write. For at least the past 10 years we have been instructed to limit the use of acronyms and abbreviations. We are supposed to spell almost everything out. Remember the AFD now goes to an audience that ranges from low-end casual users to more sophisticated high end users. I approach the discussion as an explanation of what changes to the forecast were made and why. It is not a repeat of the forecast. If the weather is tranquil the discussion should be be short. Spend the most time and effort on the upcoming weather that will have impact.

    If EMs and decision makers need more detail on the forecast, this is not the place to find it. Information on any upcoming hazard should be in the HWO, watches, warnings, advisories and statements, etc. If they are going to the AFD for this, they are looking in the wrong place. Fortunately, text products are now only one of many methods to get information.

    In my opinion, the NWS should have eliminated the AFD once other collaboration methods were in place. But, it seems too popular to eliminate now.

  3. Could the problem be that a product such as the AFD is trying to be too many things to too many people? Where does the purely meteorological reader go to get the scientific insight behind the forecast if the AFD is “dumbed down” for a lay audience? Where does the EM go to get insight behind the forecast on his/her meteorological familiarity level, if the product looks like the dense, abbreviated mess that BC typed as a bad example? Where does grandma Myrtle go if she is just curious about more than, “Partly cloudy and 34 degrees”?

    We cannot please everyone at once. We can’t be all things to all people with one product. It’s that simple. If NWS is to be translators, we need to be able to translate reasoning across multiple channels: graphical to sophisticated scientific users, graphical to sophisticated unscientific users, graphical to unsophisticated users, and textual to the same three–while somehow allowing for the fact that those are spectral nodes with no hard boundaries. Ideally, the textual part would mean three parallel forms of the same AFD–scientific, EM/media and public.

    Good luck doing that as more blood is squeezed from the turnip in a staffing and operational time-management sense. Something (or someone, more properly) must be sacrificed. Some part of the audience must be ignored. It will be a sad day if that is the scientific part, simply because it is the smallest.