 ports from each of the breakout groups. So we'll start with earthquake and then we'll do extreme heat and that'll be followed by flooding. Well, my first comment is, can we have the break first? And then we'll, no, no. So my other folks in please jump in at any moment if you want to add some comments. I think I'll start by with a comment that actually Michelle made and then reiterated at the end that one of the things that I think we've learned in the earthquakes perspective. Actually, let me step back a second, sorry, and just say just so that everybody in the room is in the same place. So the earthquake early warning effort in the US is something that's relatively recent. We started working on developing earthquake early warning delivery. It was two decades ago, that's still fairly recent as I think about it, but we now deliver alerts for all earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.5. And I think it's fair to say it's seen as being a successful effort. I shared a couple of quotes with the room, a quote from the then director of the earthquake hazard center of the USGS from the early 2000s, who told me that this is not gonna be possible. And even if it was possible, it wouldn't be useful to deliver earthquake early warning. And we can contrast that with right now, NEHERP, the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program is going through reauthorization in Congress. And last week, one of the congressional staffers working on that reauthorization told me that she thought it was probably the most successful part of NEHERP and certainly the most visible, which I don't think is actually true, but I'll take the credit. So the point is that we've gone fairly rapidly from a completely new concept to I think something that's been fairly successful. And so what have we learned through that process? And so to come to Michelle's comment, one of her comments was that one of the things that she thinks we've managed to do in a fairly good way is we've put a system in place and now we're actually stepping back and asking the question, are we actually doing a good job of delivering these messages? What do we need to change in order to do a better job of delivering the alerts? It's one thing to get those first messages out. It's another thing to actually go and ask the question, how do we make them the most impactful? And the example that she used is the one with maps. So we deliver a text message that says something along the lines of earthquake, shaking expected, drop cover and hold on. And there was a strong push to actually also provide a map so that people could see where was the area that was affected. But then the study that was done demonstrated that actually in the few seconds that you have to understand this message, it's not possible to actually understand what that is. So it's actually not the good thing to do. I hope I characterized that correctly. Approximately, she's giving me the... So that was, so that's perhaps one of the most important things is to pause and to step back and ask. We're actually delivering the messages in the right way. In terms of the questions, the technological challenges, one comment was that we deliver the alerts through multiple channels. We deliver it through Weer, we deliver it through apps. It's part of Android, it's delivered automatically, it's part of Android and it looks like it will very soon be part of Apple delivering these messages as well. And these multiple channels are important. There's a reason they all exist. They all offer something that's a little bit different and there's real value to providing multiple channels as a result of that. In terms of relating to the speed of onset, this is an interesting one. So in the case of earthquakes, we have a few seconds, maybe a few tens of seconds warning. And so we're very limited in what people can actually do with that amount of warning time. So of course, everybody would like to have more warning time, but from getting the message to people, giving people an action that they can do, it actually simplifies the problem because there really is only one thing that people can do for the most part, which is to drop, cover and hold on. So there's this interesting trade-off between this sort of lack of warning time and the simplicity of the message and potentially the ability to get people to take more effective action because it is a relatively simple message. Another comment was about using, I like this one a lot as well, using language and concepts that people understand. So I'm a seismologist, so I can tell you the only thing you should care about is the intensity of shaking. How many people in the room know what the intensity of shaking is? Yeah, I see two seismologists, three, four, okay. The point is, I think I was in the session, the point is people don't understand intensity. I mean, I forget who made the comment, but I can't tell you how many discussions have been amongst the seismology communities. The only thing that matters is intensity. People don't understand intensity. You can't just tell them it's going to be shaking intensity four. So what we need to do is we need to take that and we need to convert it into a language that means something to people using words that describe what they're about to experience instead. Let's see what else do I have here. Oh, yes, okay. And so then two more comments and I'll stop. Another one is about intermediaries and prior preparedness. So again, we only have a few seconds. So the training, any sort of education about earthquakes has to happen before the shaking occurs so people know what to expect. And so it's very important that we kind of engage with the right communities to deliver that kind of message, the education that's needed ahead of time. And the example that was given was the earthquake heroes movie, which is a movie that was put together by Skexel and California Earthquake Center to really explain to people what to expect in earthquakes and then to have wraparound events associated with that. So people can come, they can watch the movie, they can get their earthquake supplies and sort of becomes more of a community building experience to understand what to expect in the earthquakes. And then the final comment I'll make is about the agency responsible for delivering the alert. So that's the USGS. And the transition described by Sarah, the transition that the USGS has had to go through from the seismic network, it was a monitoring network. We've had a seismic network that was been a monitoring network for many, many, many years, right? Detecting earthquakes, reporting on the magnitude of earthquakes. Earthquake Early Warning was just an extension of that. We just did it a whole lot faster. But then, of course, there's the realization that it's not about monitoring, it's about delivering the alerts to people. So what we actually have is an alerting system that has a monitoring network behind it. And so that transition in thinking about where is the priority from just observing and detecting and characterizing the events to actually what's the message that we actually deliver to people. That's the transition that the USGS and all the rest of us involved in this project have had to go through. Okay. So that's the best I can do off the top of my head. Can I just quickly ask, do anybody else in the room want to add? No, we can do it. I have to, sorry. Thank you, Richard. All right, can everyone hear me? I have the pleasure of reporting out the Extreme Heat Breakout Group. And I'd first like to begin by discussing what us presenters talked about to help contextualize the discussion that we had. So Olia began by giving us an overview of Extreme Heat, how there's no standard definition unlike other hazards, millions are gonna experience heat and heat impacts and there is a distinct equity and vulnerability inherent in heat that we see also in other hazards like tropical cyclone. So how we communicate those risks differently is very important to consider when it comes to heat and also how heat warnings and alerts need to reach different populations. She mentioned her work on how we disseminate and get a heat alerts and warnings to people especially vulnerable populations and there are issues with people receiving that information. Peter talked about his work on risk perception and people's behaviors about heat. So a lot of his work is associated with people's location and demographics and how that affects their risk perceptions and ultimately the extent to which they heed heat warnings and advice, finding that it does vary demographically as well as by location, more so by demographics than location and then moving in a little bit to the messaging. I discussed some work I'm doing about jargon of heat information and the technical language contained in the one way communication from experts to public and also some embedded assumptions we found about how experts communicate about heat that informing people about heat will lead to behavior change that at risk individuals are going to inherently know that they are vulnerable which will lead to their concern and that people generally understand the benefits of what they're supposed to do to protect themselves and some work I'm also doing again about the jargon and technical aspects and people's understanding of more scientific and weather service focused information like what is a heat advisory? What is heat illness? What does heat illness index feel like? So things like that. So one of the questions that is raised is that often experts don't know when they're communicating using jargon and how that might relate to a tropical cyclone context. I do, sorry, my notes are kind of jumbled but I'm just gonna go back really quickly and say what are some jargon terms from the tropical cyclone to help us contextualize this? Again, what is a tropical depression versus a tropical storm versus a hurricane versus a major hurricane versus a tropical cyclone? Do people understand those differences? Do they understand the hurricane watch warnings outlooks? So again, the use of do experts, forecasters, those, do they understand when they're using jargon? Are they aware and the answer is not usually because that is such an ingrained thing that they communicate using on an everyday basis to one another, they may not be aware when they are using it outside of that group and then it may not have the same meaning or definitions outside. There was also some questions regarding jargon and the emphasis of plain language but also we need to personalize and localize our risk. So it was asked, can we have consistent language with both of those goals in mind? And so some suggestions were offered in terms of giving context to our messaging. And also there was inconsistencies in the definitions, well, not inconsistencies but for heat in particular, how forecast offices issue their watches and warnings is going to be different depending on the location. There was some good discussion about the intermediaries between the different types of heat information. In particular, heat has a public health component that we don't usually see with other hazards. And we asked, what is the equivalent of tropical cyclone? Or there was talk that FEMA can help plan and coordinate but we don't see that public health component with other types of hazards. How much more time do we have? Okay, sorry. So last is our reporter from the flooding group. And I think that's Andrea. Hugh, are you able to put her up? It should be Amanda. Amanda? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Andrea, please respond. No, Amanda, are you gonna put her up on the screen? Okay. Are we good? Almost, but yes, yes, we're good. Okay, so see if I can make sense of my notes from our rapid fire discussion but with flooding, it's obviously directly related to tropical cyclones. So hopefully the advances may be a little more straightforward to incorporate. We started off where Rachel discussed some of the scientific social science research that she's been doing related to riverine flood product interpretation. And then I gave an overview of some of the best practices adopted by the Weather Service as far as risk communications go for flooding and then talking about some of the new advances that we're working on within the Weather Service which include flood inundation mapping and then a flash flood severity index. So the first question that we actually got, we had a little bit of a discussion related to the FIM, the flood inundation mapping and the availability of that. And then pulling in discussions on when Google AI debuted FIM as well recently and there are many non-governmental tools to address flood concerns and whether or not that's gonna be incorporated within the water centers efforts. So we needed to have more communication and public and private sector, government sector pulling in to have buddy systems if you will. Climate Central Representative talked about their product flood vision as well. And then there was a discussion about how, with increased heat that's adding more water vapour to the system and specific discussions about the urban footprint being added to flood models to account for a higher rain totals in and around urban areas when it relates to tropical systems as well. And then there was discussion about obviously the hurricane threats and impacts product. Obviously it's gonna convey and the severity of four different major hazards including flooding rains but tornado surge and winds as well. And then moving into, we had a brief discussion about evacuation and with inland flooding being such a huge hazard for tropical cyclones how are we gonna address the issues with when and where and how to evacuate away from storm surge but then you may be evacuating into an inland flooding zone as well. So just more discussions on that. And then lastly talking about different sectors want different information. They have different needs for different partners and then including the timing of what they need talking about the media grams that you can look at but they're deterministic and they're model-based but how can we get data faster without pun intended maybe inundation of the forecasters by the data but typically the government is not at the forefront of technology advances. So it was really heavily suggested for a stronger partnerships with the government sector and private sector academia to have like a buddy system kind of betting the ones that are really good and partnering all of our efforts together and then representative from FEMA actually mentioned that they're piloting a study to partner with private sector to monitor evacuation so that public private sector partnership is already in the works. All right, thank you very much. I think we can applaud our speakers. Thank you.