Closing the communication gap between farmer and forecaster

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Predictions of weather risk that do not result in action are ineffective and wasteful. Both meteorologists and farmers have an interest in making sure the message gets through

by PHIL CHADWICK

Weather is important! Every forecast has its implication for farm operations and their bottom line. To be successful, the farmer needs to hear and understand the weather forecast as it was intended and to take the appropriate action. This communication is actually the biggest challenge for the meteorologist.

There is, in fact, a large gap between what we know as meteorologists and what we can communicate. The farmer wishes to collect, select and interpret the information about the weather that is in itself far from certain. Although we really try hard, meteorology is not an exact science.

Every weather element has an impact on the farm. "Risk" to farm profitability comes with each element, even though it might not seem that important to a typical user of weather information. The weather service provides information that must penetrate through the noise of the modern world. The farmer must decode that message and make a business decision whether to take action or not.

The response to any risk is analytical as well as emotional. What to do? How to make the farm a success?  Ideally, the farmer has the opportunity to provide feedback to the weather service, thus completing the communication loop. But that doesn't happen very often. When it does, it is usually an emotional experience and a suggestion about where to put 1,000 bales of wet hay – not that this ever happened to me.

There are many obstacles to effective communication. The language of the meteorologist must be translated into the language of the farmer. The farmer wants to know just what he or she needs to know – the weather element and its probability of being accurate would be nice. The farmer can then make the best-case business decision. But what the farmer understands is not always what was intended. Only feedback can sort out any miscommunication.

Personal and past experience can also get in the way of action. Sometimes, as with the 1998 ice storm, the event is high-impact – of biblical proportions beyond anyone's experience. Given our past experience, such events can't happen, but they do.

The value of an accurate forecast increases with its deviation from the climatic normal. For a meteorologist, those are the career-defining forecasts that you really want to get right. I worked the 1998 ice storm and, although few noticed, we got it right, well in advance. My own brother ignored my warnings. He did not buy that portable generator and froze for two weeks. That's what we call "impact."

People in general become comfortable with particular sources of information. If they like and trust the messenger, they are more likely to trust the message and take action. It is no accident that most weather broadcasters are pretty young ladies; grizzled old meteorologists like me are best on the radio.

Some weather providers use this familiarity to encourage their clients to take action. Personalized emails or phone calls that relate very specific weather information to clients are more likely to encourage action in response to the threat. A high-quality prediction of risk that does not result in action is ineffective and wasted.

Other factors that get between the message and appropriate action include the belief that one has knowledge, attitude, lead time, equipment and the list goes on and on. The decision-making process is a complex one with emotion competing with the Mr. Spock Vulcan analysis. If the meteorologist has credibility and the farmer has trust, great things can be accomplished. There are a few times that I know when this actually happened during my career, but it probably could have happened more often. Over the years, solid, professional relationships developed with some clients. This needs to be the new normal.

A new approach to communicating weather risk is being tested and is on the way. Several levels of risk will be predicted instead of the binary on-off approach to warnings currently used. This service-focused approach is intended to provide enhanced information in better ways so as to improve people's decision-making and thereby reduce their risk to life and property. The forecast and warning "team" will work together and employ social sciences in the weather research and client communities.

Social sciences are all about understanding people and the decision-making process. They can create an atmosphere that encourages actions appropriate to the risk. This will require that the weather services become more involved with and knowledgeable about their clients. Farmers are a very important group and should benefit from the new weather information currently being developed.

We all know weather is important. We all talk about it. Now is the time to actually do something about weather services. Both the weather provider and the weather client have important roles to play in this venture. BF

Phil the forecaster Chadwick has been a professional meteorologist since 1977, specializing in training, severe weather and remote satellite and radar sensing.

MANPUB - The Manual of Standard Procedures and Practices for Public Weather Services was the Bible for the provision of services and communication for the Meteorological Service of Canada. First published in 1949, I actually wrote the last revision in 1987. The version I worked on tried to eliminate words whose meanings were ambiguous. "Partly Cloudy" and "Partly Sunny" were near the top of that list, but there were many more as well which I strongly discouraged.

What is a "passing shower"? Is that precipitation different from one in the slow lane?

The Internet has allowed all of the information previously contained in MANPUB to be available to everyone. The information available at "weather.ec.gc.ca" should answer many of your questions. You will not find much information on allowed terminology to describe "sky condition." Perhaps I was too strict.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=4D51ECA8-1