Cleveland-area TV meteorologists disagree with prevailing attitude about climate change

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.

Andre Bernier, Courtesy of WJW Fox 8

“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.

, Dick Goddard

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.”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pamela Gray
December 4, 2008 3:23 pm

Funny how we change the way we think when we were young. Some get older and wiser. Some get older and forget that to get wiser, one must question one’s current beliefs. This site is from NASA from way back in 97. Very interesting read:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

mamapajamas
December 5, 2008 6:53 pm

I am not a meteorologist or a “weather” expert of any description. What I am is someone who’s been involved with computers, in one way or another, for more than 40 years.
I agree with Novoburgo (12:24:57) concerning the comments on computer models.
Having been involved with these ignorant machines since “telecommunications” meant handing a computer tape to a courier to drive over to the satellite uplink, I’ve got enough experience in my field to know that you can NOT dump a bunch of half-thought-out hypotheses into a machine and expect a correct answer. It isn’t possible except, as Novo put it, by accident.
Computers do all sorts of really neat things today by the standards of the paleolithic computers I started out on, but they still operate the same way– all they can do is add ones and zeros. Today, they’re simply doing it faster and in more complicated ways. If there is even ONE error in a given program, it will STILL give an incorrect answer. Today, those wrong answers come in faster and more complicated ways… and frequently snowballed WAY out of proportion. 😉 I recall an incident where I “moved” an entire Air Force base 200 miles further west and into the Pacific Ocean due to a misplaced decimal on a lat/long calculation. 🙂
Given that a computer program can have only one wrong calculation in it to turn the entire thing into garbage (or GIGO, as Novo so rightly pointed out!), how is it possible to model the entire world’s climate based upon what are primarily guesses about what the parameters should be?
It isn’t possible. And THAT is the correct answer.

mamapajamas
December 5, 2008 7:04 pm

A clarification: While it is possible to be familiar with local weather patterns, it would be nice if the guys at NASA would look out their windows on occasion. 😉
It is presently possible to map local weather conditions for the next few days on a computer model. We are a LONG way away from accomplishing that on a global model for 100 years into the future.

Editor
December 5, 2008 7:44 pm

From Roads (08:07:44) :
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.
-end quote
No. They are the ones with the courage to stand in front of everyone and be held accountable, unlike the climatologists who can hide in an office… Oh, and they are also the ones with social skills, presentation skills, good stage presence, a sense of timing and showmanship, …

Editor
December 5, 2008 8:16 pm

From George E. Smith (09:25:32) :
He actually works for a living, for people with real money, who really want to know in a big way, what the weather really will be tomorrow, in three days, or maybe two weeks. They have big money riding on what he says; a lot more than just closing down the late night TV news, so he has to know what is really going on out there.
-end quote
George, well put. I’d only add that farmers and some other folks are interested in the long range weather too. For farmers it’s 3 to 6 months out (and can impact crop selection, yield, fertilizing, pesticide schedules, harvest plans, etc. I remember folks setting up contracts with crop dusters for sulphur dusting peaches when end of summer rain was possible…)
If the weatherman is very reliable and says a slightly longer indian summer is in the cards, farmers will sometimes harvest one crop a bit early at slightly reduced yield and plant a second fast one for a double crop. If early winter is forecast, you let the one crop run for max yield.
Right now I’m camped on the weather watching natural gas (UNG). The price is severely depressed due to the economic slowdown, but a long term very cold forecast would argue for an uptick in prices. The financial channels (Bloomberg, CNBC, FoxBiz) all go ApeSheesh during hurricane season with predictions about hurricane impacts on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas production. The start of season prediction moves the prices for oil and gas for the whole nation for weeks. Joe Bastardi at AccuWeather is a favorite because he is very very good (i.e. accurate) and doesn’t give a hoot about what’s PC.
There is no one on the news who is more important than the weatherman. Period. Sports? No way. What happened in Romania today? Or who slandered whom at the local City hall? Don’t make me laugh. My major complaint is local news managers who just want the weather to be about will it rain later today / early tomorrow. Give the guys room to run!

Editor
December 5, 2008 8:57 pm

From jeez (13:35:09) :
Pamela, if that were a personals ad I would already be stuttering.
-end quote
But I, Um, er, he, but, redhead!, I, urk. Coffee?

December 7, 2008 9:04 am

I’m quite interested in the topic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or climate change, but I’m much more interested in human behaviour related to this topic.
There are two camps, the deniers of AGW and the apologists of AGW. While the deniers claim that “science is not settled” and a lot of questions have to be answered the apologists predicate that “science is settled” and all (sic!) questions are answered.
So far so good. There is a scientific debate and the apologists of AGW claim that they are right due to a so called scientific consensus.
In a common scientific dispute both parties would try to find proof and falsification for their hypotheses and would try to improve research to let the discussion go. Jürgen Habermas, a German philosopher of the so called “Frankfurter Schule”, additionally tought that social and scientific discussions calls for something as a basic condition: respect, even against the background of different interests of the debaters.
But the dispute about AGW is far away from this condition and different from every scientific discussion before, because the AGW-proponents refuse further discussion although their hypothesis still lacks proof and there is even no possibility of falsification for it. Instead of that all findings of the apologets of AGW provide just likelihood of things to happen due to human CO2-emissions. Additionally they introduced into discussion some doubtful computer graphs like the Hockeystick and curves of temperature anomalies which start to trouble them since 1980.
The definition of global climate and global temperature is the average of global “weather” of about 30 years. But since 1980 only 28 years passed and since about ten years of the passed 28 years we watch a lateral movement of temperatures with a little decrease since about 2001.
Against this weak background for a hypothesis it is funny to watch the quite arrogant behaviour of the thousands of proponents of AGW on the internet who claim that they are in possession of truth regarding global warming and condemn sceptics as human beings of lower morality. We know this behaviour very well. Normally it is related to ideology and ideologically exaggerated behaviour is the common attitude of devout believers who condemn everybody who doesn’t share their belief.
Probably this is a tactic of attack is the best form of defense and in order to cover, that the hypothesis of AGW logically can’t be truth because (regarding to theory of cognition) truth is unknowable by science. Science only can try to reach out for truth and may find or find not evidence. Basically every scientific finding is only acceptable under reserve. Even well tested theories like theory of relativity or quantum theory are subject to this reserve. Hence no science and no result of scientific research can and will stay for ever settled, it’s always questionable.
In case of AGW-hypothesis we are far away from truth or even positive proof and still remain on a level of likelihood (likely, most likely = 60 to 90 %) and dubiety. The aggressive and intolerant apologia of the hypothesis of AGW in the morally segregating way we watch worldwide therefore is advocacy of belief and not apology of significant knowledge.
For example: If you are a person suffering from an nasty chronic but not killing disease and a doctor offers you a drug that will heal you from this disease at a likelihood of 90 % but at a risk to die at 10 %; I guess, that you will need a strong belief in this doctor or the science providing this drug for to accept it, and even if you believe you probably will deny to take it.
Many AGW-followers are believers in a hypothesis but they want to suggest that they don’t believe but know absolute truth and condemn all who deny this doubtful “knowledge”.
Regarding the development of belief in AGW I recommend the study of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” which you will find here.

Editor
December 8, 2008 5:11 am

From peter (09:04:04) :
I’m quite interested in the topic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or climate change, but I’m much more interested in human behaviour related to this topic.
-end quote
It’s worse than you think… But first, a brief digression: I watch for the use of ‘deniers’ as a flag for the rabid AGW folks. The skeptics generally like to be called skeptics. ‘Denier’ is a propaganda tool intended to link questioning behaviour with deniers of the holocaust. Please avoid it’s use unless you intend to be cast in that light.
For you edification, this is from a thread over on climateprogress.org
-begin quote
Eli Rabett Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Joe, the way to get these guys is not straight on, but the Colbert way
“With reactionaries, never argue on content or with logic. The only thing that works is to make them feel really, really bad and really, really stupid.”
ridicule works.
[…]
cliff Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Eli Rabett, you are SO right. Ridicule will save the planet.
its just about the only way to convince a rethuglican of anything, put them into a logic chain that makes them realize they are a idiot, without having to tell them they are a idiot.
-end quote
I’ve never heard of a ‘logic chain’ before (despite a formal logic class!) but clearly you can see the problem here. Why indulge in intelligent debate when you can use ridicule?… What a way to think…
Notice also the deliberate use of insulting terms (of which ‘denier’ is one…) such as ‘rethuglican’ which took me a while to figure out since I don’t cast AGW as a republican / democrat issue but as a ‘careful thought’ vs ‘error of thinking’ issue (that is ‘is the science right’).
FWIW, you would also be well served to get a copy of “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. The AGW fervor clearly qualifies for this category.

D-bob
December 31, 2008 4:11 pm

If the enviorn-mentalless are so concerned about global warming and man’s role in making it worse, wouldn’t it be prudent for them and the eco-terrorists to kill themselves. That would eliminate any future carbon footprints they would generate and produce some fertilizer for their precious trees to grow. (Of course, some would say they are already spreading fertilizer.)