![\"Dr.](\"http:\/\/www.ssec.wisc.edu\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2013\/08\/uccellini_talk.jpg\")
<\/a>Dr. Uccellini presenting at the Weather-Ready Town Hall. Photo credit: Bill Bellon<\/p><\/div>\n
First, let\u2019s be honest. We\u2019ve all grumbled about the weather, or more specifically, about a blown forecast. It happens. What Dr. Uccellini suggested to the audience was the need to view the forecasting issue from another perspective.<\/p>\n
Uccellini began by citing an article written by Nate Silver for the NY Times Magazine in 2012. The title of the article is rather telling: \u201cThe Weatherman Is Not a Moron<\/a>.\u201d Uccellini noted that Silver holds up weather forecasting as a \u201cpremier example of measurable progress\u201d in our ability to make accurate predictions of, really, any kind. Numerical models have improved significantly allowing forecasters to make better use of the data. Another key has been for forecasters to acknowledge the uncertainty in the forecast, which allows the public to have greater confidence in the forecast.<\/p>\n Slide from Dr. Uccellini’s talk referencing Nate Silver’s “The Weatherman Is Not a Moron” article that appeared in the NY Times Magazine in 2012.<\/p><\/div>\n Continuing to make his case for a new perspective, Uccellini detailed a number of severe weather events\u00a0 and the difficulty in getting the observations needed to make a prediction, let alone having the capability to warn the public in advance. The so-called \u201cChildren\u2019s Blizzard\u201d of 1888, which was completely unforecasted, left 235 dead; the only data available were surface observations which had to be transmitted via telegraph lines. The 1900 hurricane that devastated Galveston, TX and left more than 6000 dead was missed due to \u201cpoor analysis of current conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n Describing how forecasts are made today, Uccellini highlighted the three essential components: the global observing system, computers, and data assimilation plus modeling\/science. Uccellini noted that the NWS takes in roughly two billion observations every day, and 99.9% of the data is remotely sensed, mostly from satellites. \u201cSSEC rightly deserves credit for this,\u201d commented Uccelini, referring to the legacy of SSEC founder Vern Suomi, the \u201cFather of Satellite Meteorology.\u201d \u201cThis was his [Suomi\u2019s] dream.\u201d<\/p>\n Recent severe weather events have provided interesting case studies for the accuracy of weather predictions and how people react to warnings.<\/p>\n In February 2010 \u201cSnowmageddon\u201d dumped four feet of snow in the DC area. Forecasters issued warnings on the storm system seven days in advance, with specific warnings on the potential for heavy snow three to five days in advance. Uccellini noted that because of such early notice states were able to implement COOP (continuity of operations) plans, airlines were able to cancel flights and protect their aircraft (consequently, allowing them to return to their normal schedules more quickly), and the retail industry stocked shelves ahead of the storm.<\/p>\n UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank greets Dr. Uccellini at the Weather-Ready Nation Town Hall. Photo credit: Bill Bellon<\/p><\/div>\n Last year\u2019s Sandy provides a more recent example of extreme weather, and one on a much larger scale. Uccellini detailed the impacts of the storm system, from peak wind gusts (exceeding hurricane force winds) to total precipitation to storm surge to snow depth (the first time snow warnings have been issued in conjun<\/ins>ction with a hurricane). He also noted the communication strategy the NWS employed, how they focused on the impacts \u2013 the unique nature of the storm, the large area that would be affected, and comparisons to the Perfect Storm, plus the additional task of convincing people that there would be significant snow in West Virginia. Despite the complex nature of creating and disseminating accurate forecasts, Uccellini is convinced that they saved lives and allowed people to get out of harm\u2019s way in time in this particular case; \u201cI have no doubt about that.\u201d<\/p>\n Sandy is providing a good case study for how forecasters can better predict the hurricane\u2019s track. For example, creating an ensemble forecast based on a number of forecasts is critical to more accurately track a hurricane\u2019s progress. Operational computing capacity is another key area for improvements. For example, in 2012 their operational computer could process 73 trillion calculations per second but\u00a0 transition to a new system in July 2013 boosted that capacity to 208 trillion calculations per second. The plan is to be able to process 1900 trillion calculations per second by 2015.<\/p>\n In December 2011 the NWS organized a workshop in Norman, OK to discuss this concept of a weather-ready nation, how we all need to work together as a team to prepare for severe weather. Social scientists were brought in to provide expertise on how people make decisions in response to severe weather and warnings. A surprising discovery was that the general public doesn\u2019t interpret warnings the same way that NWS forecasters do; the two groups\u00a0 operate with different definitions of the term \u201cwarning.\u201d<\/p>\n The NWS now emphasizes its role in decision support services, recognizing the need to move beyond the forecast itself. Similarly, weather predictions can be extended to other sciences, such as hydrology to study flooding or ecology. Taking a broader approach allows scientists to forecast water quality or the potential for disease outbreaks.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>