Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Each year, typically in the summer, the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate selects a topic for special study (often called our “summer study"). Our goal is to organize an informal workshop where scientists and agency staff can share information about current issues in the atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and climate. These events are a forum for frank discussions and creative interaction, and sometimes lead us to develop more in-depth activities.

Based on a suggestion from the Federal Committee for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, a committee chaired by the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose members include senior policy executives of the 14 federal agencies that are producers or users of weather and climate information, the topic selected for the August 2001 summer study was the growing concern for the proper communication of uncertainties in weather and climate information. We elected to use a series of case studies to look at actual examples of the communication of weather information and to see if these examples could provide insights that might lead, in time, to new ideas and approaches.

This report is the product of the workshop held at the J.Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 7–11, 2001, and was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Science Foundation. The agenda for the workshop is presented in Appendix A and workshop participants are identified in Appendix B. As the product of a workshop, this report does not contain findings or recommendations but instead represents an overview of discussions that occurred during the work-

shop. Each case study does contain a section, “Remaining Challenges,” that summarizes what the workshop participants saw as critical next steps. In addition, a new National Research Council report on public-private partnerships in weather and climate services (expected mid 2003) will provide detailed discussion of the relationships among the key participants in weather forecasting (i.e., the public, private, and academic sectors).

The National Academies and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate wish to thank the speakers and participants who contributed their time and energy to this workshop. This kind of activity is an important mechanism for focusing discussion on issues and highlighting opportunities for future work.

Chris Elfring

Director, BASC

This workshop summary has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published summary as sound as possible and to ensure that the summary meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the workshop charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this summary: Lance Bosart, State University of New York, Albany; Stanley Changnon, Illinois State Water Survey; Robert Ryan, WRC-TV, Washington, D.C.; and Jack Williams, USA Today.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations from the speakers nor did they see the final draft of the summary before its release. The review of this summary was overseen by Marvin Geller, State University of New York, Stony Brook. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this summary was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this summary rests entirely with the author and the institution.