Clearly, I’m not the only TV meteorologist (former) with doubts. Here is a story out of Cleveland that shows how others think about the issues. – Anthony
Cleveland-area TV meteorologists disagree with prevailing attitude about climate change
Posted by Michael Scott/Cleveland Plain Dealer Reporter
December 02, 2008 22:35PM Categories: Environment, Real Time News
They will tell you when the skies might rain or snow in fickle Northeast Ohio, when to bundle up the kids in a cold snap and when to make weekend plans if steady sunshine spans the five-day forecast. They also will tell you that human-caused global warming is hogwash. They’re your local TV meteorologists.
“This cry that ‘We’re all going to die’ is an overreaction and just not good science,” said Andre Bernier, a meteorologist at WJW Channel 8. “I don’t think I personally know any meteorologists — here in Cleveland or anywhere else I’ve worked — who agree with the hype over human-induced warming.”
The local TV weatherscape is indeed populated with on-air personalities who are pushing hard against the prevailing winds of climate science. That prevailing thought — supported by the United Nations’ 1,200-member Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society and others — is this:
The Earth’s climate overall is warming and the human burning of fossil fuels in cars and industry — which release carbon dioxide — is helping to accelerate that change. Further, climate experts say, there could be dire consequences if humanity doesn’t quickly lessen the accumulation of greenhouse gases and adequately adapt to a warming globe.
The American Meteorological Society has strongly affirmed that stance, but accredits even the on-air meteorologists who rail against it.
“Our stance is pretty clear on this and we’re in agreement with the global warming scenario as set out by the international panel,” said Keith Seitter, AMS executive director.
“Still, we think they should research all that they can,” he said. “And really, there should be less and less skepticism out there as the science improves each year — not more.”
Prime-time doubters
But, there are doubters — all AMS certified — in prominent on-air positions at each of the four Cleveland television stations.
Bernier and Dick Goddard — the patriarch of Cleveland weather forecasters — predict the weather at WJW Channel 8. Both cite natural fluctuations in the Earth’s climate and dismiss the industrialization of the 20th century and the subsequent spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide as the cause for warming.
Goddard compared the current anxiety over warming with the global cooling concerns of the 1970s, which have since dissipated. He and Bernier both point to solar cycles as the key ingredient in climate change. Bernier also said he believes the climate is no longer warming — but, rather, cooling again. “I have a hunch that in 10 years we’re all going to be longing for global warming because it will be so cold,” Bernier said. His Web site, andrebernier.com, links to a Canadian documentary that suggests the same. Others in the skeptic camp include meteorologists Jon Loufman at WOIO Channel 19, Mark Johnson at WEWS Channel 5 and Mark Nolan at WKYC Channel 3. Nolan has since moved to the news desk, but he said he still gets questions about his skeptic’s stance.
“Climate records also show that long before industrialization, the Vikings had settled in Greenland because it was warm enough,” said Loufman, who has taught meteorology courses at both Case Western Reserve University and Lakeland Community College. “I think the jury is still out on this.” So what in the name of the National Weather Service is going on here?
Do the local weather guys know more than an international committee of several thousand climate scientists? Or are they too blinded by lake-effect snow squalls to see the big picture?
Widening rift?
For starters, the drift away from global warming among TV weather forecasters is hardly limited to Cleveland. “This is nationwide,” said Stu Ostro, meteorologist and director of weather communications for the Weather Channel in Atlanta. AMS chief Seitter agreed: “I’ve seen the trend, too,” he said. “But I still don’t understand why there would be more skepticism among the TV meteorologists than in the field overall — but there is.”
The most notable example of dissent among meteorologists has been the Weather Channel’s founder, John Coleman, now a TV forecaster in San Diego. Coleman — whom Seitter quickly points out remained with the Weather Channel for only a year in the early 1980s — has said human-induced warming is “the greatest scam in history.”
There have been others, from the longtime director of the National Hurricane Center to Accu-Weather.com’s long-range forecaster, who told The Plain Dealer that “global warming is being forced down the throats of the public.”
Source of dissent
So what’s behind all of this? Dick Goddard said the answer is that weather forecasters appreciate better the lack of reliable records. “There’s only one constant, and that’s change,” he said. “We’ve only got accurate weather records back to 1874 and things have been changing back and forth since long before that.” Bernier said local meteorologists “are just more practical” and not swayed by the opportunity for more grant money to do more research proving climate change.
But Seitter, a former skeptic himself, said meteorologists who make daily weather calls have a natural rivalry with climatologists who look at longer-range trends. “Those of us in weather are used to seeing extremes all the time,” he said. “Why should we think that anything is different today just because one day is hot, another day has heavy rains? Meteorologists often see those things as natural variability.” Seitter said many meteorologists also don’t trust models — “because we’ve seen how wrong they can be in predicting weather” — and that most don’t interact with other scientists beyond other meteorologists. “We sort of live in our own world and haven’t been exposed to the same volumes of research that the climatologists have,” he said. “And that can sometimes lead to a rivalry among the two groups — where some meteorologists are defensive and some climatologists might be condescending, or at least come off that way.”
Jay Hobgood, head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Ohio State University, agreed. He said the university teaches the IPCC findings on global warming, but allows for debate. “The day-to-day meteorologists are seeing anecdotal evidence, but not the research that goes back thousands of years,” he said. “The two disciplines are very related, but the time span being looked at is very different. “Looking at the daily weather doesn’t necessarily tell you the climate is changing.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s not that simple. If I have a white roof then I have to burn more fossil fuels to heat my house in winter. Although those who live further from the equator might benefit more from dark outer walls with a reflective ground cover on the side toward the equator.
The name of the Oregon State Climatologist was George Taylor. Taylor was forced to retire this past year under pressure from Oregon Govenor Ted Kulongoski. Kulongoski considered Taylor, a faculty member at Oregon State University, to be global warming denier and wanted him out of the office. Taylor did not dispute that temperatures had risen in Oregon since record-keeping began in the 1800s, but did question the degree of human involvement in this change. As a non-tenured faculty member, it was easy for his dean and department chair to accomodate the wishes of Govenor Kulongoski and to show Taylor the door.
Taylor’s critics here at Oregon State University included noted environmental scientist Jane Lubchenco. Lubchenco considered Taylor to be dangerous because many in the lay community eagerly listened to the articulate arguments made by Tayor and that he had muddied the waters of the climate change debate with his use of factual long-term climate records.
The real irony is that Taylor is a vegetarian who rode his bike to work every day of the year while Lubchenco drives to work daily from her rural country estate. Guess who has the biggest carbon footprint?
In case you’re wondering, all of the information that I’ve supplied here is available in the public domain.
We knew Dick Goddard was among the best of the meteorologists when we lived near Cleveland in the 60’s. Good to see he is still around and as sharp as ever.
“There is no evidence that CO2 is bad for the environment”
Isn’t there evidence that higher CO2 levels are good for the enviroment? I remember some pictures recently of earth’s vegetation compared to other time period. Earth is more “green” now. Plants thrive in high CO2 levels.
“Come on, let’s get a grip. These are TV presenters, after all — presumably the meteorologists who weren’t smart enough to get the research positions.”
Sorry, to the meteoroligists out there, but I would concede to this logic if we could apply it to all of the other TV presenters. You know the “unbiased” ones like Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Gwen Ifill and such.
If we could also throw in some movie presenters like Al Gore and Michael Moore, I wouldn’t even hesitate.
; – )
I hope the rank and file meteorologists, especially those who have TV news programs, stick together. They’re high profile personnel and can provide some diverse and sane voices to counter the idiotic scaremongering AWG proponents.
~I forget the name of the Oregonian [State Meterologist]…harried out of office
George Taylor. Gov. Ted Kulongowski[sp] stated that he wanted a State Meteorologist who reflected his AGW political position. So he fired Taylor. So much for Gov’t “science”, eh?
source: memory of events as described in Media – mainly the Lars Larsen talk radio show. I live in Oregon, follow events, have heard Taylor interviewed a few times and read his statements. I pretty much knew that Taylor was going to get cashiered as soon as I heard him talk.
As a Cleveland boy I’m proud of the fact that folks there value the truth over grant money. But money is a powerful and corrupting influence, and not everyone is immune to its effects. James Hansen’s huge grant income is a case in point.
I also question the AMS’ position on AGW. They never allowed their membership a secret ballot vote on the question; Seitter and the Board simply took a position that the AGW/CO2/disaster hypothesis is a fact. How honest is that?
Finally, Mr. Roads owes Anthony and the readers here an apology for his scurrilous ad hominem attack — which contained not one scientific fact, while stating that professional meteorologists don’t have scientific opinions. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? This site is all about scientific facts and opinions.
So will Roads man-up and apologize?
Don’t hold your breath.
“AnonyMoose”
“If I have a white roof then I have to burn more fossil fuels to heat my house in winter”
Not really. Can you find any evidence that a dark roof will warm the living space under it to any significant degree? All it generally does is radiate the heat off into space or melt the snow on it. If you have a well-insulated attic, a roof in very cold climates is likely to be snow covered in winter anyway. If it isn’t, the heat is probably moving from the living space, to the attic, too the roof and out.
The coating I linked to is also insulated. It contains ceramic spheres that add insulation (R) value to the roof and will actually decrease the expense of heating the house.
And finally, the farther North one goes, the shorter the day in winter. In Minnesota today the length of daylight is about 9 hours. Considering that very little heating will be done in the first and last hour, that gives 7 hours of any useful heat absorption from the Sun and 17 hours of net heat loss through the roof. A black roof is a much better radiator of energy than a white roof.
That black roof actually costs you in additional heating bills.
I notice a pattern here that’s typical of most organizations: the guys on the ground (in the field, shop, back office, etc.) understand what’s going on, but management misses the details and draws erroneous conclusion. The meteorologists deal with weather and climate data and understand it, the AMS and Weather Channel executives deal with budgets. The essence of bad management is to ignore your own local experts and rely on consultants who are presumed experts because of their self-marketing skills and sometimes the fees they charge.
Roads appears to be a troll.
Don’t feed the trolls.
We’ve only got accurate weather records back to 1874
————
This statement would be more correct if the “accurate” were dropped from it.
Delaware’s “state climatologist” had the same problem. This isn’t new.
Roads wrote: “These are TV presenters, after all — presumably the meteorologists who weren’t smart enough to get the research positions. ”
On the same token, who are those often cited “leading” climate scientists and computer modelers? Fellows who are not bright enough and failed to qualify to enter real (not soft) science and math fields?
It’s not that simple. If I have a white roof then I have to burn more fossil fuels to heat my house in winter.
———-
My roof has snow on it for most of the winter.
Not everyone wants to be a researcher.
I find it interesting that certain types (especially academic types) just assume that everyone wants a research position and that those who don’t have one are just not as smart as those who do.
“We’ve only got accurate weather records back to 1874”
Considering that modern mercury thermometers were not in widespread use until the late 1700’s, that isn’t surprising. I don’t believe there was a single accurate weather observatory anywhere on the planet before the 1750’s.
The thermometer (then called a thermoscope) came into widespread use, we were at the tail end of the LIA so it would be expected that all temperature observations recorded through history would show a general warming trend until that recovery ended in the 1930’s.
It is also interesting to note that over the past 3000 years or so, it appears that each warm period is slightly cooler than the previous. We have been in a general cooling trend for at least that long from looking at the various proxies such as ice cores, etc.
“If I have a white roof then I have to burn more fossil fuels to heat my house in winter.”
If your roof is covered with snow in winter, it is white anyway.
A black roof is a better RADIATOR of heat than a white roof. In other words, a black roof is doing a better job of radiating attic heat and trying to melt that snow than a white roof would. Remember the paint will reflect in both directions. It impedes energy transfer. Why do you think a car radiator or any other radiator (heatsinks, for example) is black? Because they RADIATE heat better. You do not want your roof to radiate heat.
At night, a house with a white roof will have a warmer attic temperature than an identical house with a black roof. If your roof is covered with snow, you get NONE of the benefits of the black roof and all of the drawbacks. All it is doing is radiating heat from the attic into the snow and melting it.
Leon Brozyna (08:27:28) :
Meteorologists deal with reality; climatologists with climate models. Reality trumps fantasy every day of the week.
REPLY: Before computer models, climatologists dealt mainly with records of past weather. Many still do. -Anthony
That was my rather lame attempt at a little witticism. Isn’t that field of climatology called paleoclimatology, such as the work done by Dr. Mann in reconstructing past climate, especially before the era of instrumentation? Interesting controversy on that endeavor.
So will Roads man-up and apologize?
Roads doesn’t understand that from a scientific or analytical standpoint, his/her whole post is a type or kind that can be quickly dismissed – except for the obligatory rebuttal which lets Roads know that s/he doesn’t get to presume victory simply because “no one could even muster a comeback”, and it only take one of these, really.
So, no, Roads will only reappear to make similar posts, that is, if Roads holds true to the kind or type represented by the original post. Roads doesn’t understand that we are observing Road’s behavior.
Also keep in mind that the only reason roofs are mainly black is because for many years we used bitumen or tar to seal them. We have become used to seeing black roofs. We aren’t (yet) used to seeing white roofs and it takes a little getting used to.
The Claremont Hotel in Berkeley California now has a “cool” white roof instead of the traditional red shingles it sported for about a century. In addition to saving oodles of energy and not heating up the neighborhood, these coatings can be applied right over the existing shingles and will make most roofs last much longer. There is no reason a coated roof of conventional shingles shouldn’t last a century or more if the coating is kept in good repair.
“These are TV presenters, after all — presumably the meteorologists who weren’t smart enough to get the research positions. ”
Nice Ad Hom, Roads. In my experience though, just because you are a brilliant researcher doesn’t mean by definition you have a lock on good ideas. In fact, I have commonly seen the opposite – with those you would catorgorize as less than brilliant generally having much better common sense problem solving abilities.
If I was assessing the validity of an AGW opinion from these groups based just on group status – between a group who is largely funded by research grants based on the party line of “AWG is fact” vs a group paid to get it right (people will not trust / believe / watch the bad forecaster), I will put my money with the TV mets.
Mr. Roads has a blog. But not many folks seem to be visiting it. He’s probably trying to generate hits by his nasty comments, so best not to visit his site.
Roads is probably suffering from blog envy [I also threw in RealClimate for comparison].
mr hopgood states that the research into agw “goes back thousands of years”.is this the same research that announced on global cooling,a mere thirty years ago? why the 180?
Let me correct a fallacy that seems to permeate some of these remarks. ALL meteorologists are climatologists to some degree. In order to effectively forecast weather you need to have an appreciation and understanding of how the climate has behaved. The first thing any meteorologist does is delve into the history of the station for which he/she is forecasting, checking significant past events, daily, monthly and yearly records. Then more of the same with other local area and state records. A working meteorologist with a number of years under their belt has a pretty good handle on climate and will be one of the first to notice if something is unusual or out of the norm. That’s why a large number( if not an overwhelming majority) of weather forecasters recognize scientific bull$hi! hype when they see it.
Having dedicated many of my years to meteorology, it really knots my knickers to read the garbage that is foisted on the general public. I especially have a strong dislike and zero respect for those programmers/modelers who think their product can actually give meaningful insight into the distant future.
Computer programs are much improved in the past couple of decades but the original truism of GIGO still applies. Take a seven day forecast and verify the positions of major systems, and the forecast pressures and wind direction for a particular point for the seventh day. If it resembles anything approaching reality its a lucky mistake and the odds of repeating it twice in a row are astronomical. Run a program out 100 years with “slight” errors and missing and unknown factors and what do you get: pure unadulterated crap. We seem to have a lot of that going around lately.
Smokey
In regard to Mr. Roads: “…best not to visit his site.”
There is an analogous saying in Trad-Dixie: Don’t look at the trombone player, it only encourages him.
Richard Hegarty,
that New Scientist article has me shaking my head. Don’t these people do any order of magnitude calculations? I can’t give the reference but total human generated energy use is apparently about 1/10,000 of total solar input to the planet.
So take the fourth root of 1.0001 and multiply by 288 for a rough number on the temperature increase due to human inputs. I get 288.0072. So we have warmed the planet by 0.0072 deg C due to this cause. Then look at the next 100 years with 1% increase per year and the energy use is about 2.7 times current. So we now take the fourth root of 1.00027 and multiply by 288 and get 288.0194. Less than 0.02 deg C. I suggest this is negligible on the global scale but as Anthony has shown there are significant local effects of UHI.
Reading between the lines, that article was just a thinly veiled attack on nuclear energy by some very stupid and incompetent people. New Scientist ceased to be anything but PC gobbledegook quite some time ago and should probably be hauled in front of a trade practices commission for false and misleading advertising for using the word “scientist” in its title.