WCVB's Harvey Leonard on Climate Change and Extreme Weather

If you're a TV meteorologist who's not talking about global warming, you're not giving your viewers the whole story.

If you're not talking about how warmer ocean temperatures are adding strength to storms or talking about how higher sea levels are adding to flooding concerns (among many other ways carbon pollution is changing weather patterns), you're putting ignorance, fear or politics ahead of forecasting the facts.

Last week, some Massachusetts viewers went to WCVB to say thanks to WCVB Chief Meteorologist Harvey Leonard for talking about global warming's role in fueling the February "Nemo" blizzard. You can add your name to the petition thanking Leonard at ForecastFacts.org.

Here's the segment that earned Leonard viewer thanks:

White Out: Will Climate Science Denying TV Weathermen Forecast Less Snow During Blizzard?

Today's massive Northeast blizzard must put climate science-denying TV weathermen in a tough spot. Do you stick to your political guns and forecast based on a world with no temperature increase - pretend there's less energy in the atmosphere for the storm to draw on, pretend the ocean isn't much warmer than usual to add moisture to it - and risk underestimating its strength?

Or do you forecast with the baseline of a warming world fueling extreme weather and acknowledge climate disruption is helping make "Nemo" into a monster?

My guess: All TV meteorologists incorporate climate impacts into their forecasts, but few (if any) talk about the influence of climate change in their on-air forecasting discussion.

Don't Play Chicken with Mother Nature, Says WJLA's Bob Ryan

With the DC area having its warmest spring on record breaking the old mark by a jaw-dropping 7/10th of a degree, WJLA Meteorologist Bob Ryan says anyone still waiting for "certainty" before supporting climate action is similar to someone ignoring a tornado siren:

Rather than minutes or hours, Americans in the possible path of a hurricane have to make a decision. Days ahead. Do I evacuate? Do I believe the forecast? There is that cone of uncertainty . . . do I take a chance? Is the science of hurricane forecasting, “settled”? Again of course not, but decisions, human and economic decisions affecting sometimes millions are made, knowing the exact outcome is uncertain.

Supposedly the great Yogi Berra said, “It’s tough making predictions, especially about the future”. However, we make decisions every day about some prediction whether it is the traffic during rush hour, canceling a weekend picnic or headed with my family to a shelter when I hear a tornado siren.

Why should a decision about what action we take based on expert outlooks for our climate and national, regional and local changes 50 or 100 years from now be any different than making a decision, taking actions, minutes, hours, days or even a week from now knowing the tornado or hurricane, snow storm or seasonal forecast is also uncertain. The science is not settled but the modern science of forecasting short term weather is solid and the modern science of estimating long term climate changes (yes global warming and it impacts) is solid. Are either 100% accurate? Do we require 100% accuracy before making a decision or taking action? Ask folks in Joplin what they will do the next time a tornado warning siren sounds.

We make decisions every day without 100% certainty, other than the sun will come up. The science of short-term weather and longer-term climate is solid. Neither is 100% certain but look where we have come in 60 years from no alerts to “You could be killed if not underground or in a tornado shelter”. Where will we be in making climate related decisions 60 years from now? Let’s hope history gives us some perspective for our future shared decisions.

You hope your chance of having a car accident is less than 100%, yet you buy car insurance anyway. You hope the chance of your home catching fire is closer to 0%, yet you buy home insurance anyway.

The cost of cutting carbon pollution is tiny compared to how much inaction could cost. With 97% of climate scientists agreeing that our climate is warming, man-made carbon pollution is to blame, and we only have a narrow window to take action, shouldn't we get moving now?

Or should we kick up the footrest on our recliner & hope that tornado out the window will miss us?

Massachusetts Media Fails to Connect 2012's Extreme Weather to Climate Change

Massachusetts has had an record-shattering warm and dry start to 2012, resulting in brush fires - but with rare exceptions, the local media isn't connecting the extreme weather to global warming for their audience.

Polls and Beltway discussion focuses on whether Americans accept climate science and support action, but that whistles past the media's role in the matter. What if the public's knowledge of the climate threat and how it's already impacting their community is being obscured, misinformed by a media that's either not up to date on the topic, afraid to tackle it & face Tea Party blowback, or letting their own political leanings color their coverage?

Meteorologists often say they avoid talking about climate change's impact on weather because they don't want to be political. But the connection between global warming and increased wildfire frequency & intensity is well-documented. Omitting scientific reality in the face of political pressure IS politicizing the issue.

Imagine if Big Oil and its allies started denying another weather phenomenon - say, hurricanes. Would meteorologists bow to political pressure and not connect hurricanes to their local weather impacts? "Violent wind, torrential rain & extremely high tides this weekend ... uh, weird!"

Will DC's TV Forecasters Acknowledge Climate's Contribution to Warm January Weather?

The DC area's forecast for Friday calls for temperatures near 60 degrees with thunderstorms. In January.

But you won't catch our television weather presenters attributing the bizarre forecast to global warming loading the dice for extreme weather! No, sir! Expect to hear lots of things like, "Wow, tropical weather in January. Uh ... weird!"

If they mentioned our changing climate, they might get angry calls from viewers who find climate reality doesn't fit in with their political views. Here in the DC area, unless your name is Bob Ryan, you're likely to figure it's better to keep quiet about the facts than risk standing up for inconvenient truths. Or maybe, like Topper Shutt, you're a climate science denier yourself.

Learn more about why some TV weathermen aren't straight with their viewers about climate science at ForecastTheFacts.org.

DC Meteorologist Ignores Climate's Influence on Warm November

WUSA-TV Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt, last covered here giving a shout-out to climate science deniers, blogged recently about the DC region's warm November temperatures:

It was 73 on [November 14], just four shy of the record high and is still mild today but changes are on the way which is what November is all about. November typically features wide temperature fluctuations in the Metro Area. Temperature swings of highs 10 degrees above average one day can be followed by days with high temperatures 10 degrees below average all in the same week. Although rare, it has snowed in November in the Metro Area (we were reminded it can snow in October as well) while November has also seen temperatures in the mid 70s. There have been instances of both extremes that Washingtonians have experienced on this date in the not too distant past.

To use a local example, this would be like writing an article about the recent history development in Arlington's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and saying, "Some buildings are short while others are tall." While that's true, it also would be completely ignoring the easily perceived upward trend.

Just look at the global temperature trend:

Or to get local as the Capital Weather Gang did, look at DC's Thanksgiving temperature trend:

*Reflects adjusted data to account for later occurring Thanksgiving prior to 1939.

Yes, there will always be day-to-day weather fluctuations, but over the long term, the trend is pointing up thanks to man-made carbon pollution. Even the cool-down that began yesterday only brought our temperatures down to what should be normal.

It's not controversial - it's climate science. The only thing hard to figure out is why Topper Shutt won't give the whole story about how global warming is impacting DC's weather.

Topper Shutt's Clumsy Climate Denier Dog-Whistle

If WUSA Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt doesn't accept the established science that our planet is warming, man-made carbon pollution is to blame, and we need to switch to cleaner energy sources as quickly as possible, that's his personal choice. As the Columbia Journalism Review has reported, some meteorologists deny global warming for political reasons or because they misunderstand the science, so Shutt certainly wouldn't be alone. But I wish he'd just come out and say so instead of sneaking coded panders to the denial crowd into his articles.

Shutt recently wrote a couple of blog posts (republished in the Washington Examiner) about climate & energy issues. Over at Blue Virginia, Lowell has already examined the posts in detail, so I won't go too in-depth. But I did want to draw attention to this one line:

Some would have us believe that 'global warming', or now as it is called 'climate change' is our biggest threat to humanity.

Shutt's posts never come out and say what he really thinks about climate science, but this line is clearly his attempt at a dog-whistle to the science denial crowd. Climate science deniers like to say, "Scientists used to warn about 'global warming,' but then it didn't get warm, so they started saying 'climate change'!" Given that the article ran in the conservative Washington Examiner, owned by a conservative billionaire who made his fortune in part in oil, it's especially shameful.

First, who cares what you call it? The climate crisis, climate change, global warming, global boiling, global weirding, call it whatever you want. Arguments about terminology are just one of many ways climate science deniers try to deflect the conversation from the actual temperature record. Predictions of human-induced climate change have stayed remarkably consistent since they began in earnest in 1859, continued through (to pick just two examples) this video from 1958 and this report from 1975, right through today.

Second, that temperature record thing:

What's most ridiculous about the whole thing is that Shutt failed to mention global warming (or climate change!) when he was blogging about the DC region's record-shattering July heat just a few days before. As Media Matters has reported, it sure seems like climate skeptics only want to talk about global warming when it's snowing.

Bob Ryan: DC Trending Towards Warmer Winters

TBD.com is hosting a Winter Weather Chat right now. WJLA's Bob Ryan has been a leading voice in asking his fellow meteorologists to examine global warming from a scientific - not a political - point of view. The question of climate change came up early in the chat:

Max Margolis: Is Global warming the reason why our winters are warmer?

Bob Ryan: Can't ascribe one winter to climate changes but the decadal trend is for milder winters

Bob also took a question from The Green Miles on another aspect of global warming's local impacts. To see his answer, check out the TBD Winter Weather Chat.

TV Weatherman Plays Politics with Science

The Green Miles used to work as a TV news producer. One night I was out for beers some coworkers when a weatherman with little formal scientific training started spouting global warming denier talking points -- solar cycles, etc. I wasn't all that surprised because it came in the middle of a rant about Big Government -- clearly his beliefs were based on his personal politics, not science.

So when I hear about local TV weathermen who are global warming deniers and are also prominent Republicans ... well, I'm not exactly shocked:

Tim Kelley, a meteorologist at New England Cable News who is married to Scituate Republican Town Committee Chair Janet Fogarty, told a crowd at a GOP St. Patrick’s Day breakfast this month “the forecasts that the alarmists have made are obviously not coming true.” Before a crowd of state officeholders and candidates, Kelley added, “We’re wasting so much time and so much money on that issue."

Two things here. First, Tim Kelley is flat wrong. As the World Meteorological Organization confirmed last week, the 2000s were the hottest decade on record as man-made global warming continues unabated. 

Tim Kelley is also not an expert on climate. He has no formal training in climatology and no advanced scientific degree. Kelley has a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Lyndon State College. He got his degree 23 years ago -- not just before climate science became so well understood, but even before Jim Hansen's landmark Congressional testimony that originally brought global warming into the public spotlight.

When TV weathermen publicly make false statements about science, they're putting their credibility on the line and they risk having their motivations called into question. In Kelley's case, his personal political motives are quite clear.