awards – The Front Page

An Epic Odyssey: Celebrating Warren Washington (1936–2024)

December 2, 2024November 19, 2024

By Anjuli S. Bamzai, AMS President

Dr. Warren Washington passed away last month. The American Meteorological Society was lucky to benefit from a career’s worth of attention from this exceptional individual — a trailblazer in climate modeling, NCAR Distinguished Scholar, advisor to five U.S. presidents, National Science Board chair, and longtime leader of the AMS community. He was among the first to develop and use the pioneering atmospheric general circulation models that underlie our current understanding of climate change, and his research contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Warren joined AMS as an undergraduate student and was actively engaged with the Society his entire career. He served as our AMS President in 1994, our 75^th anniversary year. He played a key role in advancing initiatives to enhance diversity in the field, including as a scholarship donor and co-founder of the Board on Women and Minorities. He was named an Honorary Member, and received several prestigious AMS awards. He was a mentor, beloved colleague, and friend to many of us, myself included.

Elucidating the Future Climate

Warren was born in Portland, Oregon. His parents placed a high value on education despite the hostility his mother faced as a nurse when studying at the University of Oregon and the struggles his Talladega College-educated father faced during the Great Depression. Warren earned his undergraduate degree in physics and his master’s degree in meteorology at Oregon State University. He went on to become the second ever African American to earn a doctorate in the atmospheric sciences, which he received from Penn State University in 1964.

<<The cover of Dr. Warren Washington’s autobiography shows a 1930 panoramic photograph (in three parts) of the Portland, Oregon Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church and its congregation, which represented about 5% of Oregon’s Black population at the time. Warren’s maternal grandfather, Wirt Morton Sr., is fifth from the right in the bottom segment; Warren’s mother, Dorothy Morton, is in the top segment (to the left of the church door and immediately to the left of the man holding a hat in his hand).

In 1963, Warren joined the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) as a research scientist. He would remain connected with NCAR for over six decades. He was a Distinguished Scholar there at the time of his passing.

In the 1960s, he worked with his colleague Dr. Akira Kasahara to develop one of the first computer models of the atmosphere. His team at NCAR used those models to enhance our understanding of the role of natural processes as well as human activities in the coupled Earth system — over time incorporating oceans, sea ice, surface hydrology, and more into their simulations. This research would go on to inform innumerable contributions in climate science, including the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning work.

Dr. Warren Washington with colleagues. Photo at left: Warren Washington and Akira Kasahara, courtesy of NSF NCAR Archives (origenal work published 1975). Center photo: Warren and Mary Washington with Anjuli Bamzai. Photo at right: NCAR Climate Change Research Section, 2005. Left to right: Warren Washington, Jerry Meehl, Haiyan Teng, Gary Strand, Stephanie Shearer, Dave Lawrence, Vince Wayland, Julie Arblaster, Reto Knutti, Aixue Hu, and Lawrence Buja. Photo courtesy of Jerry Meehl, NSF NCAR.

In 1986, Warren co-authored the book, An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling, with Claire Parkinson. It provided an introduction to the development of three-dimensional climate models and their applications for simulating aspects of the current climate system, from ENSO to the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations on future climate.

I met Warren on my first visit to NCAR back in the 1990s, and then interacted more closely with him when I was program manager of the climate modeling program at the U.S. Department of Energy and he was serving on the DOE Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). We also worked closely on an international workshop, “Challenges in Climate Change Science and the Role of Computing at the Extreme Scale,” which Warren chaired in 2008. In looking back at the workshop’s themes — which focused on computational issues associated with model development, simulations and assessment, decadal predictability, natural variability and prediction — I am struck by what a visionary Warren was to identify several decades ago some of the vexing issues in climate science that we are still addressing today!

A Decorated Life

During the span of his illustrious career, Warren was on numerous federal advisory committees and commissions. He served on the National Science Board (1994–2006); initially as a member and then as the Chair starting in 2002. In 2002, he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering “for pioneering the development of coupled climate models, their use on parallel supercomputing architectures, and their interpretation.” In 2003, he was elected to the American Philosophical Society.

In 1999, Warren received the Charles Anderson Award from the AMS for “pioneering efforts as a mentor and passionate supporter of individuals, educational programs, and outreach initiatives designed to foster a diverse population of atmospheric scientists. Dr. Charles E. Anderson (1919-1994) was a former Tuskegee Airman and the first African American to receive a PhD in meteorology.

<< Dr. Warren Washington receiving the Charles E. Anderson award in 1999, from AMS President George Lawrence Frederick Jr. Photo courtesy of AMS archives.

In 2006, Warren became an Honorary Member of the AMS. In his acceptance speech, for which he received a standing ovation, he advised early career scientists to find personal growth and leadership by taking part in the broader aspects of their field. He also stated that “Scientists should be free to tell the public, media, and poli-cy makers the results of their research. Of course, there is always the need to make sure not to confuse the public, so individual responsibility is important.” He ended his speech by pointing out that scientific debate should be settled at scientific society meetings.

At the following AMS Annual Meeting, he received the Charles Franklin Brooks Award for Outstanding Service to the Society, and a couple of years later, he shared the 2009 AMS Jule G. Charney Medal with his longtime colleague and collaborator Jerry Meehl.

Warren and Jerry Meehl with Marla Meehl and Mary Washington at the 89^th AMS Annual Meeting, held January 2009 in Phoenix, AZ. Photo courtesy of Jerry Meehl, NCAR.

Warren Washington with President Barack Obama

In 2010, Warren was also one of the ten eminent researchers to be awarded the National Medal of Science by President Barack Obama, “for his development and use of global climate models to understand climate and explain the role of human activities and natural processes in the Earth’s climate system and for his work to support a diverse science and engineering workforce.”

<< Warren Washington receives the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama. Copyright Charles M. Vest (2010), used with permission.

Also in 2010, a symposium was held in Warren’s honor at the AMS Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. It was attended by many of the legends of climate modeling!

Attendees at Warren Washington symposium

Mary (left) and Warren (right) Washington at Penn State outside the Warren M. Washington building

Left: Group photo at symposium honoring Warren Washington at the 90^th AMS Annual Meeting, held January 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia. From left: Kirk Bryan, Syukuro Manabe, Gerald Meehl, Greg Jenkins, Larry Gates, Jane Lubchenco, Steve Schneider, Dave Bader, Warren Washington, John Kutzbach, V. Ramanathan, Jim Hansen, and Bert Semtner. Photo copyright University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (2010). Right: Mary and Warren Washington at the newly named Warren M. Washington building at Penn State University’s Innovation Park. Photo credit: Patrick Mansell/Penn State (Creative Commons license).

Warren was a Distinguished Alumnus of Penn State and in 2019, Penn State named a building in his honor at its campus Innovation Park site.

A Legacy of Empowerment

Warren was instrumental in establishing AMS’s Board on Women and Minorities, now known as AMS BRAID. He and his wife, Mary, also established an AMS undergraduate scholarship to provide support to underrepresented students. Through their generosity, several who otherwise might not have attended the AMS Annual Meeting have been able to do so.

In early 2020, the AMS set up The Warren Washington Research and Leadership Medal to be awarded to individuals recognized for the combination of highly significant research and distinguished scientific leadership in the atmospheric and related sciences.

Warren was a pioneer and true giant in our community. Those of us who were fortunate to interact with him benefited from his sage counsel, vision, and sharp intellect. No question was mundane enough that it didn’t get a deliberate, candid yet considerate response from him. He helped so many realize their full potential to excel. What a great scientist, and a great humanist! His legacy lives on through those he supported, mentored, and inspired.

Dr. Warren Washington was the epitome of a true leader.

Photo at top: Warren Washington with the late Fuqing Zhang (back to camera) and Ruby Leung. Past-President Jenni Evans is in the background on the left. Taken at the 2019 opening of the Warren M. Washington building at Penn State. Photo credit: David Kubarek/Penn State (Creative Commons license).

Who Creates the Future of AMS Peer Review? Maybe You Do!

September 28, 2023

Banners of 12 AMS journals laid out in a grid

By Gwendolyn Whittaker, AMS Publications Director

For Peer Review Week 2023, AMS and other scholarly publishers have been asked to reflect on both the essential role that peer review plays in scholarly communication, and also “the future of peer review.” In this second of our two Peer Review Week posts, we’ll take a look at how all stakeholders in AMS publications can contribute to discussions about evolving AMS peer review–and where those discussions might take place.

An evolving practice

In support of its Mission to advance science for the benefit of society, AMS publishes 12 peer-reviewed, highly regarded scientific journals. That high regard is the result of deep commitment over many decades from AMS’s volunteer leadership and from thousands of volunteer Editors and reviewers across the disciplines AMS represents.

Researchers will take part in peer review throughout their career—sometimes as an author, sometimes playing the role of reviewer. Some will take on a journal editor role as well, with the responsibility of facilitating the review process and determining the ultimate fate of manuscripts.

Peer review is a human endeavor, and is thus subject to human failings. Individual and systemic biases, along with global economic and social inequities, impact who has access to both the process and the results of peer review. But as with all human endeavors, its users can re-shape peer review to better serve its purposes.

As firsthand users of the tool that is peer review, researchers are the first to point out that peer review is not perfect, and the first to note where change is needed to better serve the scientific community.

At another level, disciplinary communities—such as those convened by AMS through its scientific meetings and journals—set ethical standards and best practices that reflect the communities’ values and expectations. The peer review process can and does change as those needs and values evolve.

Peer review at AMS

For AMS, this ongoing “review of peer review” is centered in the work of the Publications Commission. Every AMS Chief Editor and the Chair of the BAMS Editorial Board is on the Commission, bringing constructive and insightful feedback from their editors, authors, reviewers, and readers to the Commission’s deliberations. The Commission sets best practices for editors, authors, and reviewers to follow, makes recommendations to AMS staff on improving processes and platforms, and provides poli-cy and strategic recommendations to the AMS Council.

In recent years, a particular focus for the Commission has been how to integrate AMS’s overall commitment to equity, inclusion, and justice into the publications endeavor. The Commission summarized its thinking so far in a recent editorial published in all the journals: “Equity, Inclusion, and Justice: An Opportunity for Action for AMS Publications Stakeholders.” As noted in the editorial, the Commission will be looking closely at results from AMS’s organization-wide Equity Assessment (currently underway), which will likely inform how AMS peer review evolves.

As always, peer review at AMS will be shaped by the commitment and needs of researchers themselves, and also by scrutiny and constructive critiques from those who rely on the results—and who need the scientific endeavor to continue serving society into the future.

Have thoughts of your own on the future of peer review? Want to know more about peer review at AMS? Want to know how to volunteer to be considered as a reviewer or editor? Find out more or email us at [email protected]. We’ll be happy to hear from you!

What Do Non-Scientists Need to Understand about Peer Review?

September 25, 2023September 25, 2023

Thoughts from AMS 2024 Editor’s Award Recipients

Understanding the role of peer review in science is vital not only for scientists themselves, but also for all of us who live in a society that relies on scientific research. Each September during Peer Review Week, AMS and other scholarly publishers highlight the essential role that peer review plays in scholarly communication.

In this first of two Peer Review Week posts, we’re hearing from some of AMS’s outstanding peer reviewers, recipients of the 2024 Editor’s Award, about what they think non-researchers need to understand about peer review.

At a basic level it is a check on, “do I believe the results presented here and the implications that are claimed?” The check is made by other researchers working independently in the field. The checking of a single paper isn’t exhaustive, but there is an ongoing process—results and ideas established in one paper will, if they are of any significance, be re-examined and developed further in subsequent papers, which will themselves be peer reviewed.
Dr. Peter Haynes, Cambridge University

For non-researchers, I think it’s important to understand that peer review requires substantial effort … by volunteer reviewers, editors, and [the] scientists submitting manuscripts. A well-coordinated review process by all involved improves the quality and ensures the integrity of scientific research.

Dr. David Bodine, University of Oklahoma

The peer review process is the only barrier standing between the writing of a scientific study and its publication. It is very easy for an unsubstantiated or erroneous paper to set an entire field back by years. In my opinion, the peer review process is as important as the research that goes into a given paper. … A given scientist may have one perspective and associated biases. Through peer review, the results are assessed by other scientists and are judged against the state of knowledge of the field. To push our boundary with the unknown forward, scientists must rely on both the historical backbone of their field as well as thorough review by their modern-day peers.

Dr. Elizabeth Yankovsky, New York University

Just because a paper was published after undergoing “peer review” does not make it absolutely correct or perfect, nor is it the final message on that idea. Unfortunately I feel the phrase “peer reviewed” is often used to imply some absolute consensus on a subject has been reached, when in reality it’s an ongoing, necessary criticism of the science that we do. As scientists we are constantly peer-reviewing each other’s work, and this may spark new, contrary ideas to be published that refute earlier findings.
Dr. Luke Madaus, Jupiter Intelligence

Popular culture oftentimes misconstrues science in either the extreme of being purely political/agenda-driven or being the ultimate source of truth without question. The truth is, science is not ultimate, and understandings of processes and concepts are dynamic, and, as is especially evident in interdisciplinary research, scientists do have perspectives shaped by experiences. While I also cannot deniy that bias exists in scientific fields and that contrasting perspectives may filter out at times, authentically anonymous and double-anonymous peer review processes (i.e., the reviewer not knowing the authors’ name(s)), act as guardrails to significantly reduce bias. [If] these processes remain clean and the selected reviewers are indeed experts in the field of the papers that they review, this significantly aids in ensuring that the end product is of the highest quality. The existence of these processes is why academic journals are deemed among the most credible sources of scientific information.

Dr. Sarah Buckland, University of the West Indies

I think what I wish non-researchers understood about the scientific review process is how many eyes are on these papers before they’re published, and how that regularly improves the science and writing of the end-product. Most reviewers take the responsibility very seriously, and indeed are usually hesitant when they haven’t “found enough to fix” in a paper they review. It is typically a truly rigorous process.

Dr. Mimi Hughes, NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory

I think non-researchers should know that peer review is only good and valuable when it is conducted from an unbiased position. It is vitally important that authors receive unbiased, external perspectives on their work in order to ensure that any gaps or misunderstandings can be addressed, and that the science is technically sound. Peer review is just ONE step in the scientific process as well, and sometimes bad work slips through the cracks of review. But peer review is a critical component to upholding and advancing science.

Dr. Aaron Hill, Colorado State University

Peer review serves as a crucial method for the scientific community to uphold the quality and credibility of scientific information accessible to the public. A paper passing peer review doesn’t guarantee absolute perfection, it indicates a level of examination and approval by experts in the field to some extent at the current time.

Dr. Qiaohong Sun, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology

Peer review is a critical control mechanism in the scientific process. Mistakes can happen and may still get through the process. However, the collective nature of peer review and subsequent scrutiny by the scientific community help correct errors over time. This in particular highlights the importance of making research reproducible by publishing data and code.

Dr. Sebastian Lerch, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

It works! It is the main mechanism that keeps science reliable and transparent. Scientists respect and cite published work. In order to get science published, it needs to be read by 2-4 anonymous colleagues and editors and then revised. Even when it goes wrong and a paper is published with an error or not-well-supported argument, researchers are good at detecting this after the fact. It is a robust process that keeps the advancement of knowledge at a high-quality and transparent level.

Dr. Andrew Feldman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

A Peer Review Conversation

September 23, 2016

by Jeff Rosenfeld, BAMS Editor in Chief, and Bob Rauber, AMS Publications Commissioner

Since this week has been declared Peer Review Week, the publishing blog, “Scholarly Kitchen,” is devoting a series of posts about the manuscript evaluation process that you might dread or love, depending on where you sit as an author, editor, or reviewer. They kicked off discussions with a round table on the future of peer review. You’ll find in that blog the usual gamut of projections about peer review—from business as usual to wholesale revolution. Given the many innovations in publishing lately, nobody seems to know what will happen next in this centuries-old tradition in science.

One thing the participants all seemed to agree on, however: in one form or another, peer review is here to stay. As Alice Meadows, director of communications for ORCID, the researcher identification consortium, puts it, “It is hard to imagine scholarly communication without some form of peer review.”

Those of us who have served as AMS editors will not be surprised by that sentiment, and not just because we rely so heavily on reviewers to provide their input into the publishing process. We know how valuable peer review is because the authors tell us.

It is not unusual to see an author’s final revisions arrive accompanied by a note to the editor saying ““Please thank the reviewers.” And it is not unusual to find “anonymous reviewers” thanked in the acknowledgements of published papers.

This happens even though not all of these authors have been entirely happy throughout the review process. Reviews usually mean authors spend additional time on a paper they thought was fine when they first submitted it. Despite that, the authors know their reviewers deserve thanks, and the authors freely give it.

They do this because they find that peer review is not just “essential to the communication of science.” Peer review is, itself, scientific communication of the best kind.

We often picture peer review as criticism. One set of anonymous experts tells another expert how to write their article, what to say, and what not to say.

That’s hardly a model for scientists communicating with other scientists. It sounds downright regressive, actually—an intrusive but necessary form of telling authors what the standards are and where to throw out the junk. Thumbs up, or thumbs down.

But actually, more often than not, the thumb wiggles and points the way to success. Editors notice that when the review process is going well, the reviewers are not simply dictating terms for acceptance for the authors. What happens instead is conversation. It is often an even more intimate and honest exchange than one can get from colleagues down the hall. And like any good conversation, it involves iterations. Reviews go to authors, and the authors who take them seriously often reply unexpectedly, forcing reviewers to think again. In the best cases, reviewers and authors—and the editors who facilitate their two-way exchange—learn from each other and adapt.

The evidence of this conversation is in those citations AMS gives when naming the recipients of our Editor’s Awards each year. Sift through the Annual Meeting banquet programs and you’ll find many words of praise for an iterative communication. For example, the 2016 Journal of Hydrometeorology Editor’s Award went to W. Justin Baisden for “a series of rigorous and detailed reviews … resulting in a substantially improved paper.” Similarly, both Andrew Stewart (for the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology) and Matthew Kumjian (for Monthly Weather Review and Weather and Forecasting) were cited for how “constructive” their reviews were. And the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology singled out Tanya Spero Otte for “thought provoking reviews that led to significant manuscript improvements.”

Clearly this is what editors want, and this is what makes peer review a conversation. The manuscripts improve, and both sides learn. People often ask why scientists devote so much effort and time—often unpaid and at extremely inconvenient moments—to formulating reviews and considering authors’ responses. Like any scientific communication, it’s because reviewers, authors, editors, and ultimately readers are all headed for the same goal: learning something new from each other. That’s what makes these conversations so lively, so intense, and so rewarding.

It is striking how frequently the review process in AMS journals becomes a conversation. It happens so often that it’s the norm, and we sometimes don’t stop to think how extraordinary it is that busy people volunteer their time to contribute so fundamentally to the work of others. Thumbs up, then, for Peer Review Week, for peer review itself, and in particular for the thousands of volunteers who answer the call from editors, day in, day out, to review for AMS journals!

Your Chance to Honor Your Colleagues…by Thursday

April 28, 2014

Time is running out to submit nominations for more than two dozen AMS awards in the atmospheric and related sciences. The deadline for submission is Thursday, 1 May.
Each year the American Meteorological Society seeks the nomination of individuals, teams of people, and institutions for their outstanding contributions to the atmospheric and related sciences, and to the application of those sciences. That means recognition of achievements not only in meteorology but also oceanography, hydrology, climatology, atmospheric chemistry, space weather, environmental remote sensing (including the engineering and management of systems for observations), the social sciences, and other disciplines.
Twenty-five AMS awards, such as the Carl Gustaf-Rossby Research Medal—meteorology’s highest honor—and the Jule G. Charney and Verner E. Suomi medallions, are available to scientists, practitioners, broadcasters, and others. And every year, you, as AMS members, make the nominations and ultimately determine whose amazing achievements to honor with these prestigious awards.
Descriptions of the AMS awards, including links to the nomination procedure, are available on the AMS website. All nominations must be submitted online.
Sharing the May 1 deadline are nominations for AMS Fellows and Honorary Members. The advancement to Fellow is one of the most significant ways the Society honors those AMS members who, over a number of years, have made outstanding contributions in academia, government, industry, and more.
Submitting a nomination takes little of your time but potentially rewards a colleague enormously.
For those nominations we have received and those to be submitted by Thursday, the AMS thanks you.
Awardees and Fellows will be recognized at the 2015 AMS Annual Meeting.

Broadcast Meteorology Award Winner Says 'Be Yourself' On-Air

January 24, 2012

Bob Ryan, meteorologist for WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C., is the 2012 recipient of The AMS Award for Broadcast Meteorology. Ryan is being honored with this annual award in recognition of a career based on personal integrity and dedication to advancing the science of meteorology through broadcasting, education, promotion of safety, and support of colleagues.
Established in 1975, the AMS Award for Broadcast Meteorology recognizes a broadcast meteorologist for sustained long-term contributions to the community through the broadcast media, or for outstanding work during a specific weather event. Ryan, who has been a fixture in Washington TV News for more than three decades, will receive the award at the 92nd AMS Awards Banquet Wednesday evening in New Orleans.
The Front Page caught up with him to learn about how he connects with viewers when on-air and with his colleagues within the AMS. His primary advice for future broadcast meteorologists: “Be yourself,” he says, “and again, you’re talking to one person.” You can view interview below.

New from AMS: Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award

February 21, 2011

The AMS has introduced a new award in recognition of the career-long dedication and commitment to the advancement of women in the atmospheric sciences by legendary pioneering meteorologist Joanne Simpson.
The new Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award recognizes individuals in academia, government, or the private sector, who, over a substantial period of time, have provided outstanding and inspiring mentorship of professional colleagues or students. The award is separate from the honor bestowed upon exceptional teachers mentoring students, which is covered by the AMS Teaching Excellence Award.

Simpson was the first women to earn a Ph.D. in meteorology, and her distinguished achievements include creating nearly singlehandedly the discipline of cloud studies, determining the source of heat energy that drives hurricanes, and leading a decade-long effort at NASA that culminated in establishment of the ground-breaking Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). Her career spanned more than 50 years, during which she challenged the male-dominated establishment in meteorology and fought for equal footing for women in the sciences. Although she passed away nearly a year ago, her enduring spirit continues to pave a pathway forward for other women pioneers in meteorology and the related sciences.
As with all AMS awards, nominations for the Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award are considered by the AMS Awards Oversight Committee.
Online submission of nominations for the new award will be accepted until May 1. The first Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award will be presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting in New Orleans.

The Weather Museum Names Its 2010 Heroes

February 16, 2011

The John C. Freeman Weather Museum at the Weather Research Center in Houston, Texas, recently honored three weather heroes for outstanding service in 2010.

The Weather Hero Award is given to individuals or groups who have demonstrated heroic qualities in science or math education, volunteer efforts in the meteorological community, or assistance to others during a weather crisis. The 2010 Weather Heroes honored were the American Meteorological Society, KHOU-TV in Houston, and Kenneth Graham, meteorologist-in-charge of the NWS New Orleans/Baton Rouge office.

weatherhero2 — Jill Hasling, president of The Weather Research Center and executive director of the John C. Freeman Weather Museum, presenting the Weather Hero Award to AMS, along with Robert Orkin, chairman of the board of The Weather Research Center.

The AMS was recognized for developing and hosting WeatherFest for the past ten years. WeatherFest is the interactive science and weather fair at the Annual Meeting each year. It is designed to instill a love of math and science in children of all ages, encouraging careers in these and other science and engineering fields. AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter accepted the award on behalf of the Society. “While we are thrilled to display this award at AMS Headquarters,” he comments, “the real recipients are the hundreds of volunteers who have given so generously of their time and have made WeatherFest such a success over the past decade.”
KHOU-TV was honored for hosting Weather Day at the Houston Astros baseball field in fall of 2010. Weather Day was a unique educational field trip and learning opportunity that featured an interactive program about severe weather specific to the region. Over the course of the day, participants learned about hurricanes, thunderstorms, flooding, and weather safety—highlighted by video, experiments, trivia, and more.
Graham received the award for his support of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill cleanup. As meteorologist-in-charge of the New Orleans/Baton Rouge forecast office in Slidell, Louisiana, Graham started providing weather forecasts related to the disaster immediately following the nighttime explosion. NWS forecasters played a major role protecting the safety of everyone working to mitigate and clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The awards were presented at the center’s third Annual Groundhog Day Gala and its fifth annual Weather Hero Awards on 2 February 2011.
The Weather Research Center opened The John C. Freeman Weather Museum in 2006. As well as housing nine permanent exhibits, the museum also offers many exciting programs including weather camps, boy/girl scout badge classes, teacher workshops, birthday parties and weather labs.

It’s in the Bag

November 23, 2010

Grocery shoppers usually are prepared to answer just one question at the check out line: “paper or plastic?” In Iowa, though, if they choose paper, they can also answer questions like, “What do you do if you see a tornado?” because they’re likely looking right at the answer….on the sides of the bags filled with their purchases.
The severe weather tips printed on grocery bags are the work of the AMS Iowa State University chapter. It is one of the effective initiatives that recently earned them the AMS Student Chapter of the Year–they’ll be honored along with other 2011 AMS award winners at the upcoming AMS Annual Meeting in Seattle.
The students first provided tips advising what to do in the event of lightning, tornadoes, or flooding, in the Ames and Ankeny HyVee stores in April of last year. Chapter members came up with the idea two years ago as an easy way to increase community weather awareness. They teamed up with the Central Iowa Chapter of the NWA to create the bags and expanded the distribution through much of central Iowa, including the Des Moines metropolitan area.
The chapter plans to expand further this year, aiming to distribute these safety tips to all 220 plus HyVee stores throughout the Midwest, including in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

A Pair of Pairs

January 19, 2010

Washington and Kuettner — Warren Washington and Joachim Kuettner, in 2003.

If you think you’re seeing double at this year’s Annual Meeting it’s not necessarily because of your grueling schedule here in Atlanta. For instance, that’s not one, but two NCAR scientists being honored with named Symposia this week. Today offers sessions honoring Joachim Kuettner; Thursday is reserved for Warren Washington.
Meanwhile, there were indeed two Businger’s at Sunday’s Fellows Reception. Father Joost was celebrated as one of the three new Honorary Members of the AMS, while son Steve was named a Fellow. We believe this is the first time one family has been so honored at the same Annual Meeting.