Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[OSUmetstud]

I was responding to a quote that was addressing human deaths due to heat waves in a warming world. Considering our newborns worldwide are far more likely to die of hypothermia, its very applicable. Nice try discrediting another opposing viewpoint, like you are fond of doing.

A baby in Myanmar will really appreciate the warmth when it's under 10 ft of water.

[tacoman25]

yes it is. you can't have opinions about facts.

That doesn't address the points raised. People can have whatever opinions they want, including incorrect ones. Opinions, unfortunately, are not dependent on facts...they simply exist, with or without factual basis. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate them for their job...which in this case is to tell people what weather to expect in their local area. Do you think anyone who denies the Holocaust or denies the moon landing or whatever cannot do their job?

deniers should be identified, their propaganda vigorously rebutted, and the public should know that they are advancing a political agenda instead of science.

So basically, the IPCC should put together a SS-type organization responsible for hunting down deniers and exposing them for their crimes? Good grief, you are talking about ignorance in most cases (willful or not), not propaganda or political agendas. And even if it was propaganda or political agendas, we are still talking about TV weather people here. You are giving them way too much credit.

[Snow_Miser]

TV weathercasters should stay out of Climate Change in general IMO. On one hand we have Joe Bastardi (not a local TV weatherman, but has appeared on Fox News about climate change) claiming that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics somehow disproves AGW, and on the other hand, we have extreme alarmist weathermen claiming that every single weather event is because of climate change.

It's all really confusing to the public.

[ORH_wxman]

? the article is about TV mets. why would non-TV mets be part of this conversation?

and the article clearly explains the context and content of the word "denier".

Right...and then you said the number of deniers outnumbers the people who report on climate science correctly. This study doesn't show that. It just proves what 121 TV weathercasters believe about AGW. It doesn't ask them if they are pushing their beliefs to the public.

My local TV met might believe aliens are living here but I'd never know because he doesn't talk about it...and I wouldn't care as long as he doesn't talk about it and is giving accurate weather forecasts.

There's a fine line to walk to discrediting forecasters because of their believe on AGW. I am in agreement though that pushing incorrect science to viewers is something that should be stopped.

[tacoman25]

TV weathercasters should stay out of Climate Change in general IMO. On one hand we have Joe Bastardi (not a local TV weatherman, but has appeared on Fox News about climate change) claiming that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics somehow disproves AGW, and on the other hand, we have extreme alarmist weathermen claiming that every single weather event is because of climate change.

It's all really confusing to the public.

Agreed. It's not their area of expertise, they shouldn't act like it is.

[ORH_wxman]

more strawmen.

climate and weather are linked. if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science.

This is ridiculous.

Do you have any idea how different forecasting sensible weather is to climate science? They might be linked, but there are plenty of excellent meteorologists who have very unorthodox opinions about climate change.

On the flip side, you do think people like Trenberth should be fired from NCAR for suggesting that hurricanes increase because of AGW (causing Chris Landsea to resign from the panel)? It was clear he had no credibility on hurricanes so maybe he isn't professionally qualified to report on science?

[tacoman25]

more strawmen.

climate and weather are linked. if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science.

They are separate fields. A climatologist is not qualified to make weather forecasts, and a meteorologist is not qualified to make statements on climate change. Even if a meteorologist outright denies AGW, that doesn't mean he/she is not qualified to make a local weather forecast. And that is their job. If a climatologist is clueless about how to formulate a weather forecast, that doesn't mean they aren't qualified to be an expert on climate change.

I didn't say anything of the sort. can you contribute anything other than strawmen to this discussion?

Does your vocabulary extend beyond "strawman"? You are advocating certain actions that can only be compared with regulating people's individual opinions, and some sort of organized crack down on AGW dissenters...how exactly is this executed, who is punished, and what exactly defines a "denier"? These are questions that would have to be raised.

[ORH_wxman]

this is pointless. I think it's a problem that only 19% of US TV mets accept AGW, making TV mets more skeptical of established science than the US public is. you don't and are more concerned about TV mets who link extreme weather events to climate change. there's really no room to discuss things then.

Your failure to see the hypocrisy in your statements makes this argument pointless.

We'll agree to disagree.

[ORH_wxman]

again, this thread is about TV mets. why can't that be the discussion?

Well it was until you brought up the ridiculous claim that a TV met who doesn't believe in mainstream climate science should be discredited and not allowed to report weather anymore.

Using a reverse analogy is entirely relevant. It shows that the two fields, while related, are far enough apart that knowing one is not a requirement to excel in the other.

If I changed my mind and believed we have had zero global warming in the past 100 years, how does that make it remotely less possible for me to do my job forecasting New England weather skillfully?

[ORH_wxman]

where did I say that s/he should not be allowed to report weather? more strawmen.

I have repeatedly brought up the reality of how many tv nets have blogs and use Facebook and Twitter to talk about climate change. those are obviously the areas that should be challenged as necessary.

and personally I would dismiss any met who did not accept AGW. I would also avoid a doctor who did not accept that germs exist.

Semantics...you said they should be discredited and are not qualified to report on science. So maybe you think they should be allowed to report weather still.

Its a shame you actually believe that because someone does not believe in mainstream climate science, they are not qualified to report meteorology...which is also a science. I'm sure many climate scientists are not qualified to forecast weather, but it doesn't mean they cannot accurately report climate science.

[tacoman25]

you do realize a very large number of TV mets aren't degreed mets, right?

Yes, of course. But meteorology is still their area of expertise, or at the very least, relates directly to their job. Climatology does not. Now how about actually addressing the points I've raised?

my vocabulary extends quite a bit. however, your responses don't.

sorry, Jake, I tried to bring in some facts.

Enough with the "I know you are but what am I" retorts.

You have consistently avoided questions. This usually indicates someone who is either 1) unable to answer the questions, or 2) someone who is unwilling to. If you are unable, then you shouldn't be posting in this thread. If you are unwilling, that demonstrates someone who is close-minded and doesn't care what others have to say, and therefore does not want to engage in actual dialogue. In which case there is no point in you posting in this thread.

[tacoman25]

where did I say that s/he should not be allowed to report weather? more strawmen.

I have repeatedly brought up the reality of how many tv nets have blogs and use Facebook and Twitter to talk about climate change. those are obviously the areas that should be challenged as necessary.

and personally I would dismiss any met who did not accept AGW. I would also avoid a doctor who did not accept that germs exist.

Then challenge them however you feel fit. But saying they have no credibility professionally and are unqualified for their jobs is ridiculous.

[Bozart]

Semantics...you said they should be discredited and are not qualified to report on science. So maybe you think they should be allowed to report weather still.

They can report weather all they want, as long as they don't pollute and damage the public discourse with irresponsible flat-earthism or other idiocy. There will be no basis for mocking and hounding and discrediting them if they keep their unprofessional weirdnesses to themselves. That isn't too much to ask of TV mets, who in any case are generally not qualified to pronounce on climate change either way.

[ORH_wxman]

They can report weather all they want, as long as they don't pollute and damage the public discourse with irresponsible flat-earthism or other idiocy. There will be no basis for mocking and hounding and discrediting them if they keep their unprofessional weirdnesses to themselves. That isn't too much to ask of TV mets, who in any case are generally not qualified to pronounce on climate change either way.

I agreed with this part.

[tacoman25]

They can report weather all they want, as long as they don't pollute and damage the public discourse with irresponsible flat-earthism or other idiocy. There will be no basis for mocking and hounding and discrediting them if they keep their unprofessional weirdnesses to themselves. That isn't too much to ask of TV mets, who in any case are generally not qualified to pronounce on climate change either way.

First of all, there has been a lack of evidence in this thread that many TV mets are actually doing this. Studies showing that a lot of TV mets apparently don't follow the scientific consensus on climate change does not prove that they are "damaging public discourse".

Personally, I have witnessed more TV mets make reference to AGW in relation to weather events/trends than I have heard saying they don't believe in AGW. But maybe others have had different experiences. Either way, it doesn't prove that these people are out there trying to spread "propaganda" and "political agendas" as some have so loosely accused.

[LocoAko]

They are separate fields. A climatologist is not qualified to make weather forecasts, and a meteorologist is not qualified to make statements on climate change. Even if a meteorologist outright denies AGW, that doesn't mean he/she is not qualified to make a local weather forecast. And that is their job. If a climatologist is clueless about how to formulate a weather forecast, that doesn't mean they aren't qualified to be an expert on climate change.

This is true and something I definitely agree with. However, I think the best course of action is to trust the consensus/IPCC/mainstream scientific community's beliefs on the subject. One need not talk about it often or at all, but if you don't consider yourself an expert, you should defer to the experts (as the public should do), not make crap up to discredit them.

[LocoAko]

First of all, there has been a lack of evidence in this thread that many TV mets are actually doing this. Studies showing that a lot of TV mets apparently don't follow the scientific consensus on climate change does not prove that they are "damaging public discourse".

Personally, I have witnessed more TV mets make reference to AGW in relation to weather events/trends than I have heard saying they don't believe in AGW. But maybe others have had different experiences. Either way, it doesn't prove that these people are out there trying to spread "propaganda" and "political agendas" as some have so loosely accused.

The article at least cites a handful of specific examples of this occurring.

[ORH_wxman]

The article at least cites a handful of specific examples of this occurring.

Yes...and we know it happens. I think my biggest nitpick on the article was that they only pointed it out from the "denier" angle. They didn't point out the disinformation being spread on the other end of the spectrum...over-attribution to AGW.

I agree that all disinformation is bad to be spreading around. But we shouldn't just pretend that it is "deniers" doing it.

[louwxman]

If ever a topic should have a middle ground this is it.. deniers, discredited as mets because they dont follow the party line that AGW and all of the FORECAST PREDICTED issues that go with it are 100% set in stone fact? And this is based on a very hard to answer questionnaire that was too all or nothing that 121 TV mets/wx presenters answered? Most of the so called deniers are really nothing of the sort. The problem is more on the other side. Not that I dont believe in AGW (i do) but some of the FORECASTS AND PREDICTIONS of what it will result in and what we need to do to prevent it are in FACT ridiculous.

[TerryM]

It's interesting that TV Weathermen (let's not call them Mets) are less well informed than the general public. As some have pointed out weather and climate are related & you'd think that someone claiming expertise in one field would know something of the other.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's interesting that TV Weathermen (let's not call them Mets) are less well informed than the general public. As some have pointed out weather and climate are related & you'd think that someone claiming expertise in one field would know something of the other.

Terry

In the United States most of them have cult-big followings, blogs, facebook, tv news pages and so on.

We are talking millions of induviduals reading these places in their local community.

I think in my local area in STL the met's know and believe in climate change. A couple make dark jokes on tv quite a bit mocking how stupid it is to think things are not rapidly changing. But half their audience at least are conservatives and they are obviously muffled by higher up's to not upset the flat Earth society.

But apparently even addressing climate changes that effect "weather" is wrong to. I guess breaking all-time monthly records since the 1870s can't be talked about, we smashed March and July. Ironically most people are not surprised we are animals after-all we can "sense" when things are shifting.

On top of that another historical mark is lining up to shatter the all time record. The actual yearly record is 60.1F in 1921. There is no talk about it, you can't. They are so scared of the "denier" base tuning them out that you can barely address these historical markers.

If they were cold records, it would be the lead news story when it went down.

WARMEST STARTS TO A CALENDAR YEAR (THROUGH DECEMBER 6TH)

St. Louis, Missouri

Period of record: 1874- Present

Top Ten Avg. Temperatures

1) 62.9 2012

2) 61.8 1921

3) 61.0 1990

4) 60.7 1998/1938

6) 60.6 1991

7) 60.3 2007/1953

9) 60.2 2010/1954

[Bozart]

If ever a topic should have a middle ground this is it..

No. The earth is not oblong.

deniers, discredited as mets because they dont follow the party line

If it is a matter of "party" like you say, that is too bad for the party going against science.

[tacoman25]

In the United States most of them have cult-big followings, blogs, facebook, tv news pages and so on.

We are talking millions of induviduals reading these places in their local community.

I think in my local area in STL the met's know and believe in climate change. A couple make dark jokes on tv quite a bit mocking how stupid it is to think things are not rapidly changing. But half their audience at least are conservatives and they are obviously muffled by higher up's to not upset the flat Earth society.

But apparently even addressing climate changes that effect "weather" is wrong to. I guess breaking all-time monthly records since the 1870s can't be talked about, we smashed March and July. Ironically most people are not surprised we are animals after-all we can "sense" when things are shifting.

On top of that another historical mark is lining up to shatter the all time record. The actual yearly record is 60.1F in 1921. There is no talk about it, you can't. They are so scared of the "denier" base tuning them out that you can barely address these historical markers.

If they were cold records, it would be the lead news story when it went down.

WARMEST STARTS TO A CALENDAR YEAR (THROUGH DECEMBER 6TH)

St. Louis, Missouri

Period of record: 1874- Present

Top Ten Avg. Temperatures

1) 62.9 2012

2) 61.8 1921

3) 61.0 1990

4) 60.7 1998/1938

6) 60.6 1991

7) 60.3 2007/1953

9) 60.2 2010/1954

There is a good chance that number will drop significantly by the end of the month. Dec 1921 was actually a pretty warm month in the STL area, and it still dropped the yearly number down 1.7 from where it was on Dec 6. Just watch how fast 2012's number drops over the next week.

[PhillipS]

There is a good chance that number will drop significantly by the end of the month. Dec 1921 was actually a pretty warm month in the STL area, and it still dropped the yearly number down 1.7 from where it was on Dec 6. Just watch how fast 2012's number drops over the next week.

It looks like NOAA disagrees with your projection. From the NCDC site:

The January–November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the Nation.

Can you share a source for your prediction?

[tacoman25]

It looks like NOAA disagrees with your projection. From the NCDC site:

The January–November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the Nation.

Can you share a source for your prediction?

If you read what Friv was referring to, it was just STL yearly temperature to date. Which was then what I was referring to, as I said in my post.

[PhillipS]

If you read what Friv was referring to, it was just STL yearly temperature to date. Which was then what I was referring to, as I said in my post.

I understood that Friv was referring to STL specifically - and the data for STL is in the State of the Climate I linked to. Here is the STL Haywood plot for those too lazy to look it up themselves:

Are you seriously claiming that the weather over the remaining weeks of 2012 is going to be so severe that 2012 won't be the hottest year on record for St Louis?

[tacoman25]

I understood that Friv was referring to STL specifically - and the data for STL is in the State of the Climate I linked to. Here is the STL Haywood plot for those too lazy to look it up themselves:

Are you seriously claiming that the weather over the remaining weeks of 2012 is going to be so severe that 2012 won't be the hottest year on record for St Louis?

What you quoted was their statement on the U.S. temperature Jan-Nov, not STL temperature year to date. The projection that you cited from NOAA was for the entire U.S.

I don't know how 2012 will end up ranking in STL, but I know the temperature will drop quite a bit from where it's at now. It did in 1921, and that was a very warm December in STL, so that was my point. If STL manages a cold December, then 2012 probably won't set the record.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What you quoted was their statement on the U.S. temperature Jan-Nov, not STL temperature year to date. The projection that you cited from NOAA was for the entire U.S.

I don't know how 2012 will end up ranking in STL, but I know the temperature will drop quite a bit from where it's at now. It did in 1921, and that was a very warm December in STL, so that was my point. If STL manages a cold December, then 2012 probably won't set the record.

Through the first 343 days of 2012(leap year) STL averaged 62.9F. There is 23 days left in the year.

we take 343 x 62.9 = 21574.7

Let's say STL averages 29F the rest of the month.

29 x 23 = 667. now 667 + 21574.7 = 60.7F

if we use 25F. 25 x 23 = 575. 575 + 21574.7/366= 60.5F

The record is 60.1F for the year. If I am doing this wrong. Please let me know. But since we have already had 343 days. Even 23 days at 25F would be hard to move that 62.9F very much.

So if my Math is right. I'd say we have no chance it won't get broken

[tacoman25]

Through the first 343 days of 2012(leap year) STL averaged 62.9F. There is 23 days left in the year.

we take 343 x 62.9 = 21574.7

Let's say STL averages 29F the rest of the month.

29 x 23 = 667. now 667 + 21574.7 = 60.7F

if we use 25F. 25 x 23 = 575. 575 + 21574.7/366= 60.5F

The record is 60.1F for the year. If I am doing this wrong. Please let me know. But since we have already had 343 days. Even 23 days at 25F would be hard to move that 62.9F very much.

So if my Math is right. I'd say we have no chance it won't get broken

It does look like it would be very difficult to drop below 60.5.

What is the average temperature in STL for the rest of the month?

[skierinvermont]

more strawmen.

climate and weather are linked. if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science.

I didn't say anything of the sort. can you contribute anything other than strawmen to this discussion?

I wouldn't go quite as far as Trix and say that AGW-deniers are not qualified to be meteorologists, but I will say I lose a lot of respect and trust for them. Ideally, people's scientific opinions should be determined through appropriate channels (mainstream peer-reviewed literature and high-quality media that reports on peer-reviewed literature). Unfortunately, most people think their personal knowledge and opinions are worth more than scientific experts and this remains true even for many people educated in scientific fields.

When a meteorologist rejects mainstream peer-reviewed literature and chooses their personal speculation and the writing of bloggers, I wonder how much of the literature in their own field they are ignoring. You'll find very few of the people well-grounded in meteorology literature on this forum ignoring the findings of AGW, Deniers are not completely unqualified but there is a strong correlation with an unscientific mindset. .