Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[tacoman25]

Aside from our knowledge of meteorology and basic science, our specialty is explaining science to the masses, who generally don't read or see enough to be informed. Like you said, it's a very complex subject, and it takes certain skills to explain it simply. That is the reason (plus the fact that we have build up trust and credibility) we SHOULD be talking about one of the most talked about subjects in science. People have questions-who should answer them? Politicians? Environmental activists? Spokesmen for the fossil fuel industry?

Glenn

But as meteorologists (and this only refers to actual degreed mets, which as we have all acknowledged is far from everyone on TV), your specialty is in one type of science - meteorlogy. That doesn't make you qualified to explain climate change to the masses, just as a climatology degree doesn't qualify one to make weather forecasts. And in both cases, that's not the job description.

Some TV mets are no doubt well informed on climate science. But it's just not their job to communicate climate science to their audience. Just as it's not their job to explain biology, astronomy, chemistry, or other fields of science. It's a freakin' newscast, and the weather man is supposed to tell the public what the weather will be.

[tacoman25]

and it's not a loaded question. the whole idea of "balance" when reporting on climate science is a joke. there is one side: the facts. there is zero reason to balance it with non-facts. the question is very appropriate as it illustrates biases in an elegant, simple manner.

So there is no disagreement in climate science? This is a yes or no question.

[tacoman25]

so weather has nothing to do with climate change?

this is a yes or no question.

Start holding yourself to the same standard you hold others. Then get back to me.

[skierinvermont]

Perhaps. I assume that a group of researchers asking questions would be aware of these issues and have written a survey that takes these things into account. But maybe not.

Here was the actual question that was asked, with a five point scale (strongly agree, etc.) for the answer:

14. Coverage of climate change science must reflect a “balance” of viewpoints just as coverage of political or social issues should.

Yeah definitely loaded. And not just slightly so.. that is very loaded and could probably induce a 30-pt swing vs a more balanced phrasing.

It doesn't even mention pro and anti-AGW viewpoints specifically. Balance could just mean a good summary of scientific viewpoints, not a balance of scientific and unscientific viewpoints. And as I said before "balance" is a "good" thing.

If it had mentioned specifically a balance of pro and anti-AGW viewpoints, then I would have said it is only moderately loaded (maybe a 10-pt swing). But to not mention them specifically and only refer to the concept of "balance" in general terms makes it a really bad question. As somebody who understands the scientific evidence of AGW, and as somebody who understands that AGW is a legitimate scientific viewpoint, while anti-AGW is an illegitimate unscientific viewpoint, even I might answer yes to that question. I could see it causing anywhere from a 20 to 50pt swing in people's answer.

[tacoman25]

it's a meaningless distinction drawn by people without the courage to admit they are deniers. the climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is man-made. to be skeptical of that is to merely dissemble about not accepting the science.

This sounds almost exactly like those who say agnostics don't have the courage to admit they are atheists.

You are denying the complexity of the issue and the science. It's not merely a question of whether global warming is man-made. I do not question that there is man-made global warming. But I am skeptical of those who claim everything is settled about the future of warming, or those who claim all the warming is man-made, or those who seem to think that computer models are gospel. And I am especially skeptical of those who don't want open discussion on the issue, and just repeat over and over "the science is settled, the science is settled, we have all the answers".

If you still label me a denier, your world is black and white, there are no shades of gray, and you are wrong.

[ohleary]

that you extrapolated something I do not think from something I wrote is your error, not mine.

the TV met's job is to report the weather; forecasts that in some cases are written by other people and performed by the met in front of the camera. many TV mets, as noted in the original article almost no one read, don't have met degrees. they are essentially actors. if they are not well-informed enough about basic climate science, then they are not qualified to report on science and they have no credibility to report on science. they are, however, qualified to read from the teleprompter.

what are the 2 ways someone can be "biased" regarding AGW?

1) Global warming is a scam/hoax!

2) Hcn Sandy! OMG! Caused by global warming!

[ohleary]

then whose job is it, at a local TV station?

You realize that first and foremost, TV News/weather is show business and the TV Newscast is a moneymaking enterprise, right? Its purpose is NOT to educate the public.

[WeatherRusty]

I will try again to express my views on this forum with my red "Met" tag. I have been a MET for over 20 years have a B.S and M.S in meteorology. I am NOT a TV MET but know many. I HAVE studied climate extensively and do outreach on climate change for NOAA. I ALWAYS stick to the "party-line" when doing outreach for NOAA. I use NOAA's viewpoints because they are my employer and I am NOT a climate scientist. Some might be saying I am selling myself out but NOAA has made a pledge to speak with one voice on climate change and I comply. That's my job. That being said, I do have my own opinions but they are my OWN. I am not speaking on my behalf but am speaking on NOAA's behalf when presenting to the public. So there it is. Since AGW has become very political, I wonder if it depends on the TV station's demographics. If it is mainly republican or right winged then the TV met might lose popularity with the base audience. Much of the nation is republican or right winged, except for the cities. So, it makes me wonder if TV mets have to go along with what their viewers think. I know after given some pro AGW NOAA climate talks, I have gotten heckled that Al Gore is my boss etc. Ever since Heidi Cullen wanted AMS seals to be taken away from TV METs this caused a major politic backlash that I think did not help the cause. This also could be a factor.

Mets also see the complexities of the atmosphere every day and we are a long way off from being confident in modeling of the atmosphere. I know that weather forecasting is an initial value problem and climate models run based on boundary conditions which are changing...(CO2). But the impression is that many climate scientists believe they have it all figured out, hence the term "the science is settled". At least that is how it is interpreted. I know climate scientists continue to learn more and more...but it is presented that the science is settled, and if you question it, you are labelled...denier, skeptic, or even worst "evil"! This offends many mets. That could also be a reason.

Just my 2 cents....

AGW climate science is not a modeling of the atmosphere. Whereas meteorology is mainly concerned with the atmosphere and the weather, AGW involves radiative forcing by way of an increasing greenhouse effect and the effect this has on the temperature of the whole near surface environment, including the sea, land and atmosphere. As stated above, climate models entail changing boundary conditions, while weather forecast models depend on propagating initialization parameters. These are two very different areas of research working on many of the same physical systems, but asking questions involving large difference in both temporal and spatial scale.

The physics of AGW is settled science. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing by a well defined amount and that forcing raises the averaged surface temp of the Earth by an equally well understood amount before consideration of climate feedback. That human activity is warming the planet is settled science.

[ohleary]

the science is settled. to admit otherwise is to be a denier and to be evaluated as such.

This statement leads me to believe that you have no idea how science works. How many other times in history has someone said this about a certain subject...only to be proven wrong years down the road? Science is rarely, if ever, settled. It is a healthy and necessary exercise to question results in science! Your brazen insistence there is one answer and we have already found it, so early on in the field of AGW study, is ridiculous.

[WeatherRusty]

I respectively disagree. There is so much we still have to learn about our climate system. That is the big

problem in this whole issue. Science is never settled especially with complex non-linear systems with

inadequate datasets, course modelling etc. The Earth always has warmed and cooled and yes increasing CO2 leads

to some modest warming by physics...but the feedbacks and thus climate sensitivity is where there is plenty of

room for debate and more to learn. If the feedbacks are weak, this whole thing is a non-issue. I can say that people like you

who believe "the science is settled" are very naive about our atmosphere and climate system. But you are entitled to your opinion.

But I won't call you or others with your viewpoints as "naive" because it is not a very productive thing to do in

this debate. We should not resort to name calling in this...it is counter productive in my opinion.

If we double CO2, the global temp will respond to the resultant radiative forcing by 1.2C. That is settled science. Humans are warming the planet. That is what is considered to be settled. Not how fast or by how much in total at equilibrium. If you are scientific about the question, then you would say the the most likely outcome including feedback will be a total temp increase of between 2C and 4.5C.....with no reason to favor any part of that range at this time.

[tacoman25]

OT, but IMO, everyone is agnostic. Nobody knows whether there is really a god or not. Believers say there is but only on faith. Atheists say there isn't but this too is on "faith" as they don't know for sure either.

In a broader sense, everything requires some degree of faith or belief - including science. Unless you know everything and have all the facts, which no one does, you have no choice but to "believe" some things or not others.

There are more educated guesses than others. But the fact that science is a history of human's figuring out their world and making guesses about how everything works, piecing together evidence one bit at a time, proves that science has always just been an educated guess...knowledge is always growing, but never perfect, never omniscient, and therefore science always requires a certain amount of belief.

[tacoman25]

you're wrong. and I'm not naive. I've spent the last decade in scholarly publishing and have signed dozens of contracts with scientists for volumes on climate change.

this discussion is way over your head.

Do you have many leather-bound books? Does your apartment smell of rich mahogany?

Sounds like you're kind of a big deal.

Must be nice to know it all.

[tacoman25]

You realize that first and foremost, TV News/weather is show business and the TV Newscast is a moneymaking enterprise, right? Its purpose is NOT to educate the public.

Don't expect a real response to this. She's above that.

[tacoman25]

no apartment. and we don't bind books in leather anymore--acid-resistant paper FTW.

I don't know it all. but I know the geosciences. I've dedicated a lot of time to learning about the research and I have been privileged to talk and work with some of the leading scholars in climatology and other related fields.

the fact you mock that is very telling.

I mock you because you show no respect to others.

[WeatherRusty]

I mock you because you show no respect to others.

Climate change skeptics show no respect for climate science, and that is what ticks her off as it does me. AGW is a very serious, problematic issue which people like you largely dismiss at every turn.

[tacoman25]

I have no respect for viewpoints not based in the science.

But you clearly have your mind made up going into every conversation. You don't acknowledge others when they make valid points, you don't address questions you are either unable or unwilling to address, and then you turn around and expect everyone else to answer all of your questions and points, in exactly the manner you wish - and then yell "strawman" at them if they don't.

Doesn't make for very open or enlightening conversation. You could be the smartest person in the world but no one will listen to you if you won't listen to them.

[WeatherRusty]

But you clearly have your mind made up going into every conversation. You don't acknowledge others when they make valid points, you don't address questions you are either unable or unwilling to address, and then you turn around and expect everyone else to answer all of your questions and points, in exactly the manner you wish - and then yell "strawman" at them if they don't.

Doesn't make for very open or enlightening conversation. You could be the smartest person in the world but no one will listen to you if you won't listen to them.

Our mind is made up based on the fact of a scientific consensus which you deny.

[WeatherRusty]

It is this exact attitude that leads to hostilities on this forum. How do you know anything about me or my knowledge of the climate system?

I have done extensive studies, taken many courses on climate change, paleoclimatology at the grad level, radiative transfer at the undergrad

and grad level and have been an operational meteorologist for many years. I KNOW about feedbacks very well...we deal with them everyday

as forecasters and how poorly some are understood in the atmosphere and even more so, how poorly they can be modeled.

I take offense to your comments.

It is the basic physics of radiative transfer that is where I begin to become skeptical...down to the absorption spectra of various GHGs.

How does a gas (CO2) that absorbs primarily at the 15 micron wavelength dominate over water vapor which has a broader spectrum of LW absorption.

Using Wein's Displacement Law that translates to being most effective at -50C or colder.

If CO2 does dominate over H20 and clouds, then basically CO2 is our thermostat and somehow dominates over a the main GHG except during small periods when the Milankovitch mechanisms dominate allowing for a cooler(warmer) climate when CO2 is rising (falling), until CO2 then reasserts itself as dominate. But we are told the Milankovitich mechanisms do not have enough radiative forcing to explain the glacial-interglacial cycles and you need feedbacks. Well I agree, but based on the ice core records...the ice albedo affect looks to be dominate to me. So how can something that is too weak to explain the great changes in climate do so at certain small intervals of time. It does not follow logic. We can argue this some other time.

Even more so, when you look deep into the real physics, hard core stuff, many questions arise. I don't have access to climate models. and just because you associate with climate scientists and "scholarly publishing" proves nothing. Ever hear of "group think". I know some of that goes on in every scientific

field.

And please stop the name calling. You are a negative influence on this forum in my opinion by the way you treated me. This is why TV mets stay away from this stuff. Too many political charged people like yourself!!!

If you think the science says CO2 dominates the greenhouse effect over that of water vapor then you don't understand the science at all. CO2 is all important but not in the way you obviously think.

[FPizz]

Our mind is made up based on the fact of a scientific consensus which you deny.

Just like how everyone thought that the brontosaurus was real for 100 years.

[skierinvermont]

It is the basic physics of radiative transfer that is where I begin to become skeptical...down to the absorption spectra of various GHGs.

How does a gas (CO2) that absorbs primarily at the 15 micron wavelength dominate over water vapor which has a broader spectrum of LW absorption.

Using Wein's Displacement Law that translates to being most effective at -50C or colder.

Ayayay.. this is such basic stuff. Also you're contradicting yourself having previously stated you understand the 1.2C radiative response per doubling of CO2.

Nobody has said that CO2 dominates over H20. H20 comprises more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 does. Also additional H20 has a smaller effect than additional CO2 because the H2O absorption spectrum is more fully saturated in the atmosphere. It's the same reason that the first 50ppm of CO2 has a bigger effect than the next 50ppm. The effect is logarithmic.

[WeatherRusty]

Just like how everyone thought that the brontosaurus was real for 100 years.

That's right. Exactly like that.

So you are banking on the current state of multiple branches of science to be flawed. If the radiative forcing by CO2 does not cause warming, or that Stefan-Boltzmann or Planck's Law are flawed, or any of the derivatives are flawed, some very basic physics are seriously in trouble. AGW isn't based on dubious science, it's really quite basic, fundamental stuff. How it all plays out in detail, is not so certain, but the basic picture is clear and understood. The world is warming and will continue to warm until the forcing ceases.

[skierinvermont]

.

The whole Catastrophic AGW IS based on computer models.

As I have explained to you previously this is completely false. You are basically lying by deliberately ignoring the facts offered to the contrary.

A climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C is based on many independent lines of evidence - the least of which is climate models.

[tacoman25]

Climate change skeptics show no respect for climate science, and that is what ticks her off as it does me. AGW is a very serious, problematic issue which people like you largely dismiss at every turn.

What kind of respect do you expect? I think there is anger sometimes because some of us don't treat climate science as infallible, or we don't react as alarmed as you think we should. But that doesn't mean we have no respect for the science. For me personally, it's more of a tempered respect. I respect the process, and I believe we have learned a lot, but I am not in such haste to declare everything settled and figured out.

[tacoman25]

Our mind is made up based on the fact of a scientific consensus which you deny.

Please stop making untrue statements.

I don't deny the scientific consensus that does exist on climate change. However, I don't necessarily trust the consensus to always be right, at least not in every respect. I am aware of the history of science and in particular climate science, and I know that nothing is static.

[tacoman25]

I assure you--I have addressed valid points. and I have called out strawmen as needed.

Repeat it all you want, doesn't make it true. There have been multiple occasions in this thread when I have asked you questions and you couldn't bother to address them, but then demanded I address yours.

That is fact. I know you like those.

[tacoman25]

Ayayay.. this is such basic stuff. Also you're contradicting yourself having previously stated you understand the 1.2C radiative response per doubling of CO2.

Nobody has said that CO2 dominates over H20. H20 comprises more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 does. Also additional H20 has a smaller effect than additional CO2 because the H2O absorption spectrum is more fully saturated in the atmosphere. It's the same reason that the first 50ppm of CO2 has a bigger effect than the next 50ppm. The effect is logarithmic.

Right...but then there are all the questions of feedbacks. And that is where many diverge.

But the science is settled!! No need for different viewpoints here!!!

[WeatherRusty]

I have never thought of climate science as political. BUT politics did get into this unfortunately long ago and, IMO is when

problems began.

I am a pure scientist with an open mind who wants to understand the atmosphere both weather and climate system better.

This has been and will continue to be my life long pursuit. Climate science and Meteorology are never settled and just because

there is a "consensus" on any future forecast does not make it true. Consensus forecasting does do better than

one forecaster alone, but I have seen "group think" among weather forecasters lead forecasters down the wrong path

many times. All forecasters believed they were right and had good intentions just like climate scientists. I hold no ill

will toward any climate scientists and am friends/colleagues with some of the most highly regarded climate scientists. I respect their work

but I don't have to agree with them. All of these folks who I have met are true to the science, ethical and believe in their work.

I like to come to my own conclusions using these folks and their work as resources. But I am skeptical by nature not

just in climate science but in meteorology too. By being skeptical you learn more instead of blindly accepting science because it

is supposed to be "settled". There are many areas of climate science and meteorology that are far from settled.

I am trying to wrap my head around the climate sensitivity issue and have read many many peer reviewed papers and

still have doubts and questions...

We all try to wrap our head around the climate sensitivity issue. It represents the least understood, unsettled portion of the climate puzzle. It is not part of the consensus. However, the fact that we can not pin climate sensitivity down to less than a factor of 2 or more should not engender a comfortable feeling.

[tacoman25]

As I have explained to you previously this is completely false. You are basically lying by deliberately ignoring the facts offered to the contrary.

A climate sensitivity of 2-4.5C is based on many independent lines of evidence - the least of which is climate models.

I cannot agree with this. GCM's are a fundamental part of future climate predictions - which range from relatively mild and inconvenient, to undoubtedly catastrophic. So to argue that catastrophic AGW theories are not really dependent on climate models, which attempt to show the effects of different sensitivities, is just not true.

[WeatherRusty]

What kind of respect do you expect? I think there is anger sometimes because some of us don't treat climate science as infallible, or we don't react as alarmed as you think we should. But that doesn't mean we have no respect for the science. For me personally, it's more of a tempered respect. I respect the process, and I believe we have learned a lot, but I am not in such haste to declare everything settled and figured out.

I expect not that climate science be considered infallible, but rather a respect for what is confidently understood as well as areas of acknowledged degrees of uncertainty.

Nowhere from the science are there claims of everything to be settled. What is settled is simply that mankind's activities are causing a global warming. Anything over about 2-3C of warming would be very bad. The world hasn't been that warm for over 15 million years.

There are crackpots out there on both sides who distort the true science and areas of actual scientific uncertainty. We should strive to discuss what the actual science says, to often we argue with the crackpot stuff.

[WeatherRusty]

Right...but then there are all the questions of feedbacks. And that is where many diverge.

But the science is settled!! No need for different viewpoints here!!!

The science of feedbacks is not settled and no one in the science claims as much.