The fact that Colman was glued to his desk, his monitor, his phone, and his picture windows overlooking Lake Washington while Mass was sitting in New York tapping away at a laptop says a lot about the fundamental differences between them. It would be too simplistic to boil it down to a conflict over the relative importance of human versus machine—but they’re playing out a subtle weather—geeky variation on that theme.
To understand the fine points it helps to have a little background on the recent history of weather prediction. Back in the stone ages—pre-1950s—weather forecasting was largely empirical and intuitive: The forecaster plotted observations on weather maps, analyzed major features like fronts and pressure systems, and foretold the future by comparing those features to similar conditions in the past. Old-timers with long memories were prized for the dependability of their hunches.
“We look like jerks when Cliff insists on undercutting us publicly…he comes off as the hero—we are the goat. It’s hurting the weather service.” —Brad Colman
Everything changed in April 1950, when computers entered the picture. An early task assigned to the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) was to run a series of calculations that could be used to forecast weather. ENIAC -assimilated data from 768 weather stations to -construct a grid that simulated atmospheric conditions—and then applied the laws of physics to calculate how conditions at each grid point (the imaginary spots in the three-dimensional chess board) would evolve in the near future. It took ENIAC nearly 50 minutes to crunch the data, and the resulting model was so crude that only large, sprawling events were captured. The meteorological impact of our mountain ranges and irregular channels of salt water did not even show up on the early models. But, as the speed and capacity of computers grew exponentially over the past half century, the models became correspondingly more refined and realistic.
So realistic, crows Mass, that the high—resolution MM5 model that he began to apply to Pacific Northwest weather a decade ago, and still runs out of the UW, can almost perfectly simulate a Puget Sound convergence zone. Plug in the numbers, hit enter—and voilà—showers over Everett, heavy snow at Stevens Pass, and a big blue hole from the King-Snohomish county line down to SeaTac. Even the national models that are the daily workhorses for National Weather Service forecasters remain too crude to capture a convergence zone in all its subtle, evanescent glory.
Not so fast, counters Colman. For years now, Colman has been challenging Mass’s insistence that more detail and higher resolution are better. “Cliff’s fine-grid models are sexy and seductive physically, but what’s their utility if he ends up with more and more detail that is wrong in terms of the actual timing and placement of the event?”
Mass responds with some pointed pokes of his own: “The Weather Service lags behind. They’re not nimble, they lack resolution. And they insist too much on continuity. Once they make a forecast, getting them to change when conditions warrant it is like turning a big ship.”
“We look like jerks when Cliff insists on undercutting us publicly,” Colman fires back. “Some of his remarks are really hard to swallow. He can say things and get away with them because he’s a rock star. He comes off as the hero—we are the goat. It’s hurting the Weather Service.”
NEXT: Mass and Colman’s conflicting egos.
Published: October 2009
Many of the “facts” provided in this article are simply wrong. Major errors on technical matters and he describes “a pissing match” that simply doesn’t exist. Inaccurate quotes. Really sad that a journalist of David’s reputation has written such a sloppy and inaccurate piece for this magazine.
I know Cliff Mass personally, and a lot of these facts sound accurate, knowing what Cliff is really like. David Laskin writes a great story, and it should be clear from this that the National Weather Service not only works harder, but cares a lot more about their audience than a research professor like Cliff Mass – who maintains a blog on which he disapproves of and deletes ANY comment that disagrees with his thoughts and opinions. He treats his opinions as facts, so it seems between that and his comment here that he has a twisted meaning of the word “fact.”
This Joe is “Weather is my Life” on my blog, who I had to remove due to his insistence on making highly inappropriate comments. I invite all interested parties to check my blog history to understand this guy and his issues.
You know, I saw Cliff Mass speak once, and my impression of him would have to agree with what Joe implies. The quotes by Brad Colman and Nick Bond seem to make a lot of sense based on what I saw of him. He just seemed rather into himself and his reputation and cared less about the people listening to him. Just an impression, though.
So Cliff, having a different comfort level than most people and thus having a different opinion on the weather from you is “highly inappropriate”?? This guy’s a real character!
Please, I do invite and completely welcome all to check his blog history as well to see that the only “highly inappropriate” comments made (as Cliff calls them) are me sharing my own opinions and comfort levels on the weather. Then you can see what Cliff Mass is really like.
I only know Cliff from 3 places, his book, blog and PBS. Cliff dedicates a lot of time that he doesn’t get paid for to talk about something he truly loves, the weather. I have always found him to be kind in taking time to answer questions on his blog and to go on PBS and speak about the weather of the Pacific Northwest. “weather is my life” has been a very disruptive and downright rude contributor (for lack of a better word) on Cliff’s blog. I would like to take this chance to thank Cliff for his dedication to the blog.
Thanks!
-Rob
Interesting Article. Couple of things..
Joe aka Weather is my life is a wing nut…
As far as the article it is interesting to note the difference from two different institutions and their thinking on forecasting. Cliff coming from the predator style system (pilot in Las Vegas sitting on his Herman Miller shooting hellfire missiles in Afghanistan) and Colman would be shooting shoulder fire missiles on the ground. I for one would like human intelligence on the ground when it comes to, for instance, fire weather. There are times when a incident meteorologist can gain information (local people informing about local micro climates) that can make a big difference in tactics. On the other hand I am a big proponent of new ideas and technology in the mix. But we need to remember, government agencies are always behind in utilizing new technology. The vetting process and procurement process is just but a few of the issues NOAA and or other agencies run into when implementing a new system. Learning institutions can utilize (for the most part) newer technology.
We also need to remember that Noaa is official and legal. The legal part can hold a lot of responsibility on the forecast office. When you have operations on a fire ground or emergency incident forecasting becomes more than a fun blog to watch. Cliff is an excellent forecaster. But he doesn’t have the weight of the incident command, local and state government, shipping, and air traffic, all depending on the best scenario. This can make what you say very different. I enjoy both modalities. Cliff can give the inside scoop of why.
Josh
Apparently it was “highly inappropriate” to post a link to this article on Cliff’s blog. The comment was deleted and he turned moderation on for his blog (to protect his shaky reputation maybe?). Nothing else whatsoever was said in the comment, just a link to this article. So David Laskin, I apologize on behalf of Cliff that he thinks your article is “highly inappropriate.”
Many of us who followed Cliff’s blog were sick of Weather Is My Life’s (Joe?) tedious and angry comments. When anyone said the weather was going to be nice, Joe would wimper that for him good weather is bad. Strange dude! And now he is attacking cliff because after warning him to stop Joe kept it up and cliff now won’t let him comment anymore.
I never said that good weather is bad. I said that “good” in that context is subjective, and different people have different opinions. It’s the fault of Cliff and others who comment on his blog not realizing and accepting that.
Joe/Weather Is My Life wrote: “I said that "good” in that context is subjective, and different people have different opinions. It’s the fault of Cliff and others who comment on his blog not realizing and accepting that."
Joe, it would be wise to heed your own advice and accept people’s comments might contain opinions about “good/bad” weather other than your own without throwing a tantrum (your predilection for excessive use of punctuation).
Note you often stray from subjectivity yourself… there is a word for that, hypocritical.
Correction: Note you often stray from objectivity yourself…
“it’ll definitely get worse again before it gets better for awhile.”—-weather is my life
August 11th 2009 Responding to cliff forecasting a warming trend for that period…..
Sounds pretty subjective to me.
Just had to say it…..there all done…
The only two reasons I put my subjectivity in there are 1) primarily to make a point to you that those terms ARE subjective, and 2) to give the opposing point of view (comfort) to help balance it out. If Cliff and all other posters stop the subjectivity, so will I. It’s the same with media and everything else – if they stop the subjectivity, then there’s no reason for me to make the point anymore. But someone has to help people realize that there are in fact other views and what Cliff, media, and lots of others say are NOT the facts.
Joe thanks for giving everyone a glimpse of your “character” here too. You’ve done exactly what was expected.
Joe is right. Cliff Mass should not be allowed to rpovide any forecasts and he is completely subjective. Forecasting is the job of the National Weather Service and they surely know a LOT more than he does. Cliff also has extreme global warming views which have no connection with reality. It is CLEAR that there is no such thing as man made global warming and all we see are natural cycles forced by the sun. Seattle Met Magazine should be praised for providing a piece that exposes CLiff’s extreme and unscientific views.
I work in the Seattle NWS forecast office and this article is really nonsensical. There is no war, schism, or major disagreement between us and the UW. My office and the UW have worked closely together for years. We jointly plan and run the NW weather conference, there have been a number of joint projects and research projects, UW students come over for internships, with Cliff and Brad working closely together for years. Many of us were Cliff’s students at the UW. Cliff and Brad sometimes discuss and occasionalyl debate scientific issues, but this is a completely professional and friendly relationship. I have never seen Cliff publically criticize our forecasts—never. Laskin’s story is really fantastical and has little to do with reality.
As a former Associated Press reporter in the 70s and 80s, I’ve grown increasingly disheartened by some reporters on issues such as these. It’s like Entertainment Tonight, the focusing on personalities. Professor Mass let me audit his senior-level forecasting class in the late 1990s and Brad Colman came in for a wonderful presentation and some of the other wonderful folks at NWS, like Ted. I also have attended the yearly Weather Workshops at NOAA Sandpoint and seen the interaction between these two honorable and most professional scientists. It seems to me that Mr. Laskin is pressing divergences in honest scientific issues to false EITHER/OR flashpoints of contradiction. When instead what differences might exist are more often of the character of the Genius of the AND. In his book, Dr. Mass makes mention of recommending reading of the forecast discussions issued by Dr. Colman’s crew. For me, it is indeed enjoyable reading as the lead forecasters discuss some of the uncertainties. Notable lead forecasters such as Jay Albrecht, Nick Felton and then an extra joy as Ted Buehner and Brad Colman take the ’editor’s desk’ and issue their own forecast discussions. Contrast this with some really ugly personality controversies in the history of science, such as the UW’s Harlan Bretz being pretty much read out of geology from 1920 forward until his evidence of catastrophic failure of ice damming at Glacal Lake Missoula was finally accepted in the 1970s and won him geology’s top honor. No comparison.
In this article, Seattle Metro Magazine shows the worst of U.S. journalism—careless with the facts, searching for a “fight” where none exists, and creating “human interest” stories even if the truth is in the way. I certainly will never purchase a copy of their magazine again.
Dennis, I like reading the National Weather Service discussions myself, but sometimes it’s difficult when they seem to be so subjective in their terminology. I prefer reading their scientific discussions without someone else injecting their opinions into it. But that aside, they are great to read to get the thinking of those that specialize in forecasting!
As someone who has been a forecaster in the Seattle area for several years and had the honor of working for both men, (and have been part of the debates over the years when storms strike — or don’t), I too am quite shocked and horrified over many gross, gross exaggerations in this article. I’ve seen nothing but deep respect between Mass and Colman and any differences have been quite professional. “Schoolyard stuff”? Please. If it weren’t so inflammatory and damaging to outsiders’ thoughts on who is making their forecasts, many of the local weather forecasters would find this article quite humorous in its attempt to make something out of nothing. The Seattle area is quite lucky to have these two bright minds steering the ship.