Why is America's confidence in TV weather reporters dropping?

[Dark Energy]

http://www.wjla.com/...ing--11479.html

[Clifford]

Like many media sources, TV Weather is being replaced by Computer Weather. Any time, day or night, I can snag the current local or national weather forecast off of the computer. And, I get bored listening to the weatherperson rattling off the forecast for the entire state.

As far as climate change discussions. As has been repeatedly discussed here, I find discussions about individual weather events being related to a longer term global warming as being non-scientific, and inappropriate discussions.

There is no "average" weather. So, while our local newspaper reports that the average rainfall is 0.04" for June 21. That is only an indication that it might rain 0.2" on that date every 5 years, not that this year was at all abnormal on that date.

I believe that our local weather reports are based on the local weather station at the airport. While I assume it is technically in a good location, away from the city, there have been concerns about airport located weather stations, and the city is slowly growing in that direction so that any local climate trends would be questionable at best.

Gloom & Doom? I'm still hoping to get enough sunshine that my garden will grow.

[LakeEffectKing]

Another problem I see, is that many AGW proponents often "discount" the skeptical views of many mets via the "weather is not climate" argument and that "mets aren't experts in the climatology field"....yet, when "weather" organizations (such as the AMS) support/tout/tow the line of the AGW'ers, they don't seem to mind "their" opinions. It certainly seems like the AGW folk are trying to have it both ways.

If us mets aren't qualified in assessing the current debate wrt climate change, then the AMS as well as all mets should disassociate it/them self(ves) from climate science. If mets do hold some value as to their opinion, then ALL METS OPINIONS should be included! If not, then the entire "intermingled" sciences of climate/weather/atmospheric/geology/solar/etc......will suffer in the public's eye as the extreme predictions set out by extreme warmers, will be inevitably be tied to ALL the aforementioned sciences, by the general public. It is inherent upon all sciences to quell the extreme thoughts on the topic from either side of the debate.....or the distrust will only grow in the public's view, as they tend to only latch onto the super doom and gloom progs or the super "conspiracy" crap that is put out.

[LocoAko]

Another problem I see, is that many AGW proponents often "discount" the skeptical views of many mets via the "weather is not climate" argument and that "mets aren't experts in the climatology field"....yet, when "weather" organizations (such as the AMS) support/tout/tow the line of the AGW'ers, they don't seem to mind "their" opinions. It certainly seems like the AGW folk are trying to have it both ways.

I think you're mischaracterizing that stance. The AMS isn't a "weather" organization... it is the national atmospheric sciences organization. Have you ever been to a national AMS conference? There is hardly a focus on "weather" - it encompasses everything within the atmospheric sciences from climate communication to radar to geoengineering. I think a lot of people state that they discount (broadcast) meteorologist's climate stances because those people either a. don't have a degree in the field or b. only forecast for a living and so have little or no formal training in climate science. The people in the AMS making these pronouncements (well, the hundreds of scientists under the AMS making them) generally aren't "forecasters".

Tell me - I forget the exact numbers, but it was in the upper 90s - percent of climate scientists believe in global warming, but something like 1/2 of broadcast meteorologists do. Who would you lend more credence to? Would you trust their opinions equally? Just because they all have meteorology degrees does not mean they are all knowledgeable in all fields, and I think that is being lost by you somehow equation the goal of AMS with the goal of broadcast mets...

[Kelvin Wave]

I think the "not trusting Meteorologists idea" is due to most Mets not having any training in climate science. Most meteorology curricula do not include climate classes. Also, most do not include statistics or data analysis classes. Since climatology is based on statistics, it is crucial for climate scientists to have a solid understanding of statistics.

Also, the previous poster is spot on about the AMS. The AMS certainly has meteorology branches, but they also have LOTS of other branches, including climate. As an example, they publish the Journal of Climate.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think you're mischaracterizing that stance. The AMS isn't a "weather" organization... it is the national atmospheric sciences organization. Have you ever been to a national AMS conference? There is hardly a focus on "weather" - it encompasses everything within the atmospheric sciences from climate communication to radar to geoengineering. I think a lot of people state that they discount (broadcast) meteorologist's climate stances because those people either a. don't have a degree in the field or b. only forecast for a living and so have little or no formal training in climate science. The people in the AMS making these pronouncements (well, the hundreds of scientists under the AMS making them) generally aren't "forecasters".

Tell me - I forget the exact numbers, but it was in the upper 90s - percent of climate scientists believe in global warming, but something like 1/2 of broadcast meteorologists do. Who would you lend more credence to? Would you trust their opinions equally? Just because they all have meteorology degrees does not mean they are all knowledgeable in all fields, and I think that is being lost by you somehow equation the goal of AMS with the goal of broadcast mets...

I was invoked in our local chapter in the early '90's....the focus was very much on "weather" phenomena, and the majority of the members were mets. I'm sure some of that has changed, but it doesn't diminish my point about the perceived hypocracy that is inherent to "pre-qualifying" "experts" based on their position of the issue being discussed.

[LocoAko]

I think the "not trusting Meteorologists idea" is due to most Mets not having any training in climate science. Most meteorology curricula do not include climate classes. Also, most do not include statistics or data analysis classes. Since climatology is based on statistics, it is crucial for climate scientists to have a solid understanding of statistics.

Also, the previous poster is spot on about the AMS. The AMS certainly has meteorology branches, but they also have LOTS of other branches, including climate. As an example, they publish the Journal of Climate.

This is changing. Climate classes are now considered part of the standard AMS cirricula as of 2010: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2010degree_atmosphericscience_amsstatement.html

And I think it is standard for most meteorology programs to require a statistics course. Most schools I'm familiar with do.

[LocoAko]

I was invoked in our local chapter in the early '90's....the focus was very much on "weather" phenomena, and the majority of the members were mets. I'm sure some of that has changed, but it doesn't diminish my point about the perceived hypocracy that is inherent to "pre-qualifying" "experts" based on their position of the issue being discussed.

Then TBH I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. To me, it is clear that a climate research under the AMS is to be trusted more for their opinion than a broadcast meteorologist even if they both hold meteorology B.S.'s.

[LakeEffectKing]

Then TBH I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. To me, it is clear that a climate research under the AMS is to be trusted more for their opinion than a broadcast meteorologist even if they both hold meteorology B.S.'s.

The AMS surely is composed of Tv mets...and some of them surely have taken climate courses (which BTW were plentiful options during my undergrde years, of which I took 3). My beef is with which the Society (at the admin. levels, rushed into opinion on the matter, where there certainly exists more skeptism from its' members than the more narrow discipline comprised of strictly "defined" climatologists, yet the portrayal of the AMS stance is touted by the AGW'ers as being all encompassing stance of the membership as a whole.

[iceicebyebye]

As far as climate change discussions. As has been repeatedly discussed here, I find discussions about individual weather events being related to a longer term global warming as being non-scientific, and inappropriate discussions.

I find that disingenuous and counter-intuitive....Individual events or "units" of weather collectively add up over a period of time to equate "climate"....AGW projections have long suggested that not only does the climate change, but individual weather patterns and events are subject to influence by AGW. To disallow any discussion on weather events in the context of climate change seems to signal an unwillingness to consider data points that are inherently real.

On the primary question of the thread, not just related to AGW, but in general I think folks have lower confidence in TV weather talking-heads because well, the practice of weather forecasting accuracy in and of itself is challenging beyond a few days. People are more apt to remember when someone is wrong versus when they are correct.

[Kelvin Wave]

This is changing. Climate classes are now considered part of the standard AMS cirricula as of 2010: http://www.ametsoc.o...sstatement.html

And I think it is standard for most meteorology programs to require a statistics course. Most schools I'm familiar with do.

Yes, the changes are recent. Most of the Mets speaking out against climate change aren't impacted by these recent changes. Also, I should have been more specific with regards to the statistics courses. I think a lot of intro statistics courses don't cover much, if any, data analysis or time series analysis, which is what climatologists do a lot of. Knowing just what means, standard deviations, and normal distributions are won't get you very far in the average climate paper.

[WeatherRusty]

I find that disingenuous and counter-intuitive....Individual events or "units" of weather collectively add up over a period of time to equate "climate"....AGW projections have long suggested that not only does the climate change, but individual weather patterns and events are subject to influence by AGW. To disallow any discussion on weather events in the context of climate change seems to signal an unwillingness to consider data points that are inherently real.

On the primary question of the thread, not just related to AGW, but in general I think folks have lower confidence in TV weather talking-heads because well, the practice of weather forecasting accuracy in and of itself is challenging beyond a few days. People are more apt to remember when someone is wrong versus when they are correct.

I agree.

If climate is to change, then the component weather events must on average also change somehow. To ask if climate change is implicated in a single event is to ask the wrong question it seems to me. The correct question to ask is how does a warmer and or more humid planet affect the weather.

[Kelvin Wave]

I agree.

If climate is to change, then the component weather events must on average also change somehow. To ask if climate change is implicated in a single event is to ask the wrong question it seems to me. The correct question to ask is how does a warmer and or more humid planet affect the weather.

The best way would be to interpret results of climate change in a probabilistic sense. With global warming, certain events will become more likely... but that doesn't mean that any individual event has anything to do with climate change. The only way to prove causation in this case would be to run a computer model and show that if climate change were not included, the event would not have happened. This, of course, is infinitely more difficult than it sounds.

[tacoman25]

The best way would be to interpret results of climate change in a probabilistic sense. With global warming, certain events will become more likely... but that doesn't mean that any individual event has anything to do with climate change. The only way to prove causation in this case would be to run a computer model and show that if climate change were not included, the event would not have happened. This, of course, is infinitely more difficult than it sounds.

The problem is, there isn't really solid agreement in the scientific community at this point what all these events are, what places are most likely to be affected, or how exactly global warming would change the probabilities. A lot of the information out there right now is pretty vague, as it has to be.

[aslkahuna]

This is changing. Climate classes are now considered part of the standard AMS cirricula as of 2010: http://www.ametsoc.o...sstatement.html

And I think it is standard for most meteorology programs to require a statistics course. Most schools I'm familiar with do.

Odd, when I was studying for my Met degree back in the Cretaceous Era, one of the required courses was Climatology (still have my textbook from it) as was Stats/Prob.

Steve

[LocoAko]

Odd, when I was studying for my Met degree back in the Cretaceous Era, one of the required courses was Climatology (still have my textbook from it) as was Stats/Prob.

Steve

We're actually required to take a Climatology course too (it was intro-level and designed for non-majors mostly). I think this is more of a "Climate Dynamics" class requirement moreso than Climatology.

[tacoman25]

Are climatologists required to take meteorology courses?

[Msalgado]

The short answer I have to the OP is that because the general public links climate change and weather (thus those who report on the weather) quite strongly. Its not really something that can be addressed by any meteorological organization because its an issue that has deeper roots in our society and the devaluation of science as a whole. Its hard to quantify this without poll numbers in front of me but I would be shocked if over the past 10-15 years the American public has not seen a lowering in the trust they give scientists due to many political issues.

[superjames1992]

We have to take statistics and climatology courses here at NC State.

[WxTurtle]

The AMS surely is composed of Tv mets...and some of them surely have taken climate courses (which BTW were plentiful options during my undergrde years, of which I took 3). My beef is with which the Society (at the admin. levels, rushed into opinion on the matter, where there certainly exists more skeptism from its' members than the more narrow discipline comprised of strictly "defined" climatologists, yet the portrayal of the AMS stance is touted by the AGW'ers as being all encompassing stance of the membership as a whole.

Climatology coursework is also much different than it was even 10 years ago. It would also be foolish to think that mets in their 40's, 50's etc. were taught interdisciplinary climate interaction at the same level that today's atmospheric science students are.

Re: the AMS-- when an organization comes out and says "we support XXX" it traditionally means they have at least majority support, there is no unanimous requirement (kind of like how just because Obama is president, doesn't mean American is a fully liberal nation).

Whether it's fair or not, there's also been an education gap that's become exposed among atmospheric scientists trained at elite schools (Ivies, Penn State, etc.) who tend to have the better climate scientists vs. those programs which have a much more slanted operational forecast focus at weaker universities (no offense to its grads, but schools like Western Connecticut, etc.). This has had somewhat of a cascading effect against the average met, which probably contributes (in some part) to the distancing of climate scientists from their TV met counterparts.

Are climatologists required to take meteorology courses?

Very few people get degrees in "climate" at this point (although that's changing). Most are atmospheric scientists or get general earth science degrees.

I don't know of any program nationally where someone who focuses on atmospheric climate does not take dynamics/met courses when getting a B.S. or higher degree.