This week in Boston, Mass., the nation's broadcast meteorologists will meet in their yearly conference sponsored by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). You probably don't have it marked on your calendar, but from the point of view of the planet, it's the most important meeting of weather reporters in history. Because the burning question in Beantown is whether weathercasters will embrace their responsibility to communicate how climate change is creating a new normal of dangerous, extreme weather.
Given the climate change-fueled storms, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires that have dominated the past year, global warming will undoubtedly be a "hot" topic at this year's conference. But, amazingly, many broadcast meteorologists remain lukewarm to the subject: The majority of weathercasters, including many with AMS certification, don't believe that humans are causing climate change, let alone that it's dramatically shifting our weather patterns. These meteorologists are missing the opportunity to be journalistic heroes who can inform the nation about our increasingly poisoned weather.
For those weathercasters who want education on the subject, the conference will have plenty to provide, with panels like "Applying Climate Change to Google Earth," "Climate Change and Ocean Stories," and "Hot Topics for the Station Scientist." But the source of the climate communication deficit is mostly not educational, it's about politics. The ideological bent of some forecasters, and the pressures to avoid "controversial" subjects that might affect ratings, are leading some meteorologists to ignore science when airtime arrives. That's why the staff of Forecast the Facts will be attending the conference, carrying a message from thousands of our members: that reporting on global warming is a professional and moral responsibility. Below are just a few of their powerful comments:
You have a captive audience and no other single spokesperson would be better to educate people so they can effect changes in their own lives and in how we as a nation or community address and deal with correcting this problem that impacts us all. -- Peggy B., Ocean Isle Beach, N.C.Surely as scientists you know the realities of climate change. We must share this scientific evidence with as many in the public as we can before it is too late. You have a unique position where you can make a real difference and educate the public to this ever dangerous reality. Please use factual evidence to educate our citizens about the difference between weather and climate and to explain the greenhouse effect so that it is easily understood. Thanks for taking on this vital task. -- James L., Hardwick, Mass.
Everyone watches the weather and relies on local forecasting. I'd very much appreciate local forecasters/weather experts making the connection between climate change and current weather patterns, based on the latest data, and helping the public to distinguish between long-term variation and short-term variation. You can make a big difference in educating, motivating, and driving critical behavior change. -- Henry K., Sparks, Nev.
These Forecast the Facts members are not alone. Most Americans want their meteorologists to report on climate change. According to a March 2012 Yale/George Mason survey, two out of three Americans believe that global warming is changing our weather and want to learn more. The survey also found that 58 percent of Americans "would be interested in learning what my favorite TV weathercaster has to say about global warming." Even those who aren't expressly asking for that information are clearly in need. Over the past six years, 80 percent of Americans have been affected by extreme weather. Their local meteorologists are the ones who can help them understand what's going on, and whether they should expect more.
Thankfully, some meteorologists have already heeded these calls. WLTX Chief Meteorologist Jim Gandy of Columbia, S.C., does a weekly segment called Climate Matters, which explores how global warming is affecting the planet and his own community. KMGH-TV Chief Meteorologist Mike Nelson of Denver and WBOC-TV Chief Meteorologist Dan Satterfield of Salisbury, Md., run popular blogs that contribute both breaking weather alerts and informative explanations of how humans are changing the weather. And others, like WPRI-TV meteorologist TJ Del Santo of Providence, R.I., have done stand alone segments on the climate change-fueled heat wave.
These intrepid reporters deserve our sincere appreciation; Forecast the Facts members have already been showing them love online, and we're excited to convey our thanks in person this week. But too many meteorologists still fall far short of this ideal. If this past year has taught us anything, it's that when meteorologists refuse to accurately report on climate change, they quite literally put their viewers at risk.
Forecast the Facts is a grassroots community that exists to ensure that Americans receive accurate information about climate change. The growing incidence of climate-fueled extreme weather makes our work more urgent, and polls suggest that the recent heat waves, droughts, and mega storms are convincing the public that global warming is here. But whether Americans get the full story about these climate impacts depends largely on how the nation's broadcast meteorologists report on the subject. We should know a lot more about where their community is headed after this week's conference in Boston, and we'll be filing daily dispatches to keep the public apprised.
The facts of climate change are now blowing in the wind. But the question remains: How many heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and megastorms must we have before weathercasters start to forecast the facts?
Follow Daniel Souweine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@forecastfacts
The meteorologists you mention have the right idea; they need to be stand-alone segments. But we don't need to, nor should we, start talking about climate change in our traditional weather segments.
Also, I take personal offense to those doubting our education levels. There are talking heads out there, yes, but the vast majority of us have four-year degrees in Meteorology. And trust me when I say this-- it's as hard a major as there is to earn to out there. And about advertisers? BP and ExxonMobile don't give a hoot what your local weatherman is saying about climate change. And they certainly don't influence our own personal beliefs about it. You think we, personally, see any kickback from those companies to stay quiet about climate change? Please.
This year, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached its highest level on record and, based on fossil proxies, probably the highest level in a million years or more.
Weathermen don't deal much with fossil records or even climate trends. They deal with far shorter term predictions.
Worse than that though, TV weathermen are very often sponsored by car manufacturers, car insurance companies, and fossil fuel groups like Clean Coal, which means, if they want to make sure they know where there next pay check is coming from, THEY DARN WELL BETTER NOT UPSET THEIR SPONSORS BY TALKING ABOUT SCARY PHENOMENON THAT COULD UPSET CUSTOMERS AND SPONSORS .
For those who are alarmists, please look up and read the leaked emails from the so-called expert scientists who have been promoting global warming, they themselves had to change their own data in order to show current periods.
2. You haven’t given any evidence that weathercasters have done their homework on global warming.
3. Referring to people who understand the science behind atmospheric physics as idiots is rude name calling. I can do that too, but I will let you win the name calling game this time, as it shows the weakness of your scientific argument…. You don’t have one.
4. You refer to stolen emails released by hackers in Russia. Did you know that Russia is one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters? Do you work for the Russians for money or do you do it for free? Did you know that all the scientists who had their private emails stolen and plucked out of context have been exonerated of even a hint of having falsified data?
5. The scientists at NASA and NOAA who work on climatology know far more than you will ever know about the subject. While your rude name calling is understandable for someone trying to gain conservative credentials, it is also childish and unthinking and, in my opinion, anti-American and anti-Science.
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in
the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
Svensmark has a cute theory, unfortunately, GCR have not increased since the 1950's, so why has the temperature gone up?
Duh..
Another fossil fuel apologist.
Next.
Before you call Henrik Svensmarks theory debunked, perhaps you should spend a little more time reading about how his theory works. If you did, you would see that your comment about "CGR have not increased since the 1950's, so why has the temperature gone up" actually makes perfect sense. His theory roughly states that the more GCR entering our atmosphere, the more low level clouds are formed. More low level clouds means that more of the suns rays are reflected, resulting in a colder climate. As you pointed out, GCR has reduced since the 50's and therefore the theory states, less low level clouds are formed, more sun rays are entering our atmosphere and the result is a warmer climate. You just displayed your own ignorance by posting a sentence that is in accordance with Svensmarks theory and you just failed to understand it.
Oh and by the way.
Svensmarks theory about the GCR influence on cloud nucleation (Cloud formation) has been verified experimentally at CERN (CLOUD experiement) and SKY (National Space Institute in Copenhagen). These experiments prove that GCR at least can make cloud nucleation sites that grow big enough for clouds to form.
Next.
http://ecopolitology.org/2010/04/07/stephen-colbert-pits-climatologists-vs-meteorologists-video/
Weather isn't climate.
This has happened before with an unrelated story related to Monsanto's rGBH in milk and a couple of reporters finding links to cancer. The stuff is banned in Canada and in Europe for some reason. Monsanto threatened their Fox station with lawsuits and pulled ads if the original report was aired. The reporters lost.
You know, everybody would just love if the oil industry and their paid for politicians was right when denouncing global warming. That would be great news for everybody. Well, admitting being wrong is never fun, but the good news surely would compensate sufficiently.
And it's not as if this would mean the end to all problems. There's plenty around anyway.
But you don't solve a thing by denouncing the science you don't like. On the contrary.
Have you, on the other hand, considered how much the oil industry is gaining by making people like you doubt the bad news?
Maybe that should tell you something...