Pages

Showing posts with label weather. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weather. Show all posts

Should we talk about the weather? Discussing climate without killing the conversation

By Grist staff

In this episode of Slow Ride Stories, Erik and Albert head to Hunter Mountain Ski Resort in the Catskill Mountains. They talk to CEO Russ Colton about the impact of shorter ski seasons on his business, and former lift engineer Scott Berwick about the devastation wrought by Hurricane Irene in his nearby town of Hensonville. Along the way, Erik does some serious stunt narrating and answers the burning question: Why are we talking about the weather?

Erik Fyfe and Albert Thrower are traveling across the Northeast by motorcycle, talking with a wide range of people about their perceptions of climate change and experiences with extreme weather. Their aim is to spark conversations about the changing climate and collect local stories about how it may impact everyday Americans. Find all of the Slow Ride Stories here.

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//climate-energy/slow-ride/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }
Read more >>

Weather underground: How TV weathercasters can help in the climate fight

By Anna Fahey

A version of this article originally appeared on Sightline Daily. This article is from the series “Talking Weather and Climate.”

We humans are warming our climate — mostly by burning up fossil fuels. And we’re seeing a range of serious impacts in our own backyards and across the globe, including the increased frequency and magnitude of some types of extreme weather.

Americans seem to get it. Polling from 2011 shows that a majority of us now link an unnaturally warming climate to droughts, floods, and other extremes. But, according to opinion research by George Mason University, only 19 percent of television weather forecasters [PDF] acknowledge the established science of climate change. An earlier study found that 27 percent of TV meteorologists call global warming a “scam,” while over half denied that humans are the cause.

It’s a cryin’ shame, too, because as trusted local “personalities,” weathercasters are in a unique position to help interpret climate science and impacts through the lens of local weather.

If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that some weathercasters are coming around on their own — and there are several campaigns to help the others catch up.

Weathercasters matter

As Inside Climate News’ Katherine Bagley points out, broadcast forecasters make up only a small fraction of meteorologists — maybe 10 percent. Most U.S. meteorologists are researchers — for NASA and NOAA and the like. So, they may be few, but weathercasters are mighty. Unlike their lab-bound counterparts, they enjoy the limelight that comes with being local TV celebrities. And polling shows us that what weathercasters say about climate matters:

“The public cares about what their weathercaster thinks of climate change,” says Ed Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.In 2010, Yale and George Mason found that 56 percent of Americans trusted weathercasters to tell them about global warming far more than they trusted other news media or public figures.More than three-quarters of TV meteorologists say they have discussed the topic of global warming either on or off air.

Notably, Bagley reminds us that for many Americans, their TV weatherperson is the only climate-related authority they encounter on a regular basis — or ever!

Reasons weathercasters lag behind

Bagley identifies three likely reasons weathercasters are slow to acknowledge climate science:

They don’t trust the climate models. Polls show that about 75 percent of weathercasters distrust models of climate change. The climate models used for short-term weather forecasting and long-term projections about the broader climate are similar, but the short-term models are usually only accurate in predicting five- or seven-day forecasts — if that. Weather forecasters may think the long-term models are just as fallible.Weathercasters aren’t required to learn about climate science. About half of meteorologists have bachelor’s degrees in meteorology. The other half are mainly journalists assigned to the weather beat. But there are virtually no undergraduate meteorology programs in the country that have a significant climate science component. And both the big certification programs (American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association) fail to require climate-related course work or to test for climate knowledge in the written exam or reviews of on-air work and forecasting.Personal politics and beliefs cloud evaluation of the science. As Maibach cautions, whether, how, or if a weathercaster chooses to discuss climate change may come down to their personal politics and beliefs.

Of course weathercasters don’t have the final say when it comes to reporting beyond the forecast. As I’ve written before, it’s news directors (as well as station or network owners) who are the ultimate “gatekeepers,” often making content decisions based on ratings, advertising sales, and other commercial factors that might prevent full coverage of “controversial” issues like climate.

A weathercaster renaissance?

So, how do we get the weather personalities on our local news stations up to speed on climate?

There are some obvious fixes that could happen pretty fast.

As for the differences between short-term and long-term modeling, Bagley finds Keith Seitter, director of the American Meteorological Society, quite optimistic that there’s an easy solution. He says that some basic training for weathercasters about the differences between weather and climate models could go a long way.

What about education? Again, possibly a pretty easy fix here. Make climate science classes mandatory in these programs and/or put climate science questions on the certification exams. Campaigns like Forecast the Facts aim to pressure both professional societies and undergraduate programs to do just that.

And, to its credit, the American Meteorological Society has been offering workshops on climate science to its members for many years.

The National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) also has a promising program underway, providing weathercasters with tips on talking about the links between weather and the environment, including climate adaptation and mitigation information to incorporate into their broadcasts. As of several years ago, the free, weekly newsletter goes to 95 meteorologists in 63 cities, who in turn reach more than 150 million viewers.

NEEF’s weekly tip sheets (called Earth Gauge) are tailored to each city’s local three-day forecast. They include information about climate patterns as well as practical information like public transportation options to reduce emissions or suggestions to put off lawn fertilizing to prevent chemical runoff during a downpour. (Anybody can sign up for these tips, and they’re also available in Spanish.)

I haven’t seen any evidence of this on my local weather forecast, but The New York Times reported back in 2007 that The Weather Channel was at least one major broadcaster taking tips from NEEF’s Earth Gauge service to the airwaves (or cables). “If The Weather Channel isn’t talking about climate change and global warming, who is?” Kaye Zusmann, the network’s vice president for program strategy and development said at the time. “It’s our mandate.”

But that was back when climate was still fashionable. And as yet, I’d say taking this level of responsibility as weather forecasters is the exception, not the norm.

Additionally, NEEF collaborates with the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training to provide online environmental science courses for meteorologists and the public, with an eye to nudging weathercasters to include more environmental perspective and coverage. It also features profiles of meteorologists on its site, playing up the notion that they are “station scientists,” ambassadors bridging the scientific community and the general public.

The biggest, most daunting obstacle, however, has to do with personal politics.

Paul Douglas, a prominent Minnesota meteorologist and Star Tribune contributor, made a big splash when he “came out” as a Republican weathercaster who acknowledges climate science — and he says we have cause for alarm. Writing in the Huffington Post about his own “ephiphany,” he lamented the partisan politics that had previously clouded his own ability to acknowledge the science. Those dark clouds continue to prevent his many conservative friends and meteorologist colleagues from seeing the evidence that’s all around them.

There will likely be many more stories like Douglas’s as our weather gets weirder. One can only hope those who see the light are equally vocal about it. We also need more structural fixes that nudge weathercasters to a similar renaissance, in time lending climate science the friendly, local, plain-speaking, and personable power of TV personalities across the land.

Anna Fahey is a communications strategist at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based research and communications center working on sustainable solutions for the Pacific NW.var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//climate-change/weather-underground-how-tv-weathercasters-can-help-in-the-climate-fight/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }
Read more >>

National Weather Service to Send Weather Warnings to Smartphones

The National Weather Service will soon start sending severe weather warnings to millions of smartphone owners in the U.S., the Associated Press reports.

Wireless Emergency Alerts will warn users about the following threats — tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, flash floods, extreme winds, blizzards and ice and dust storms.

A warning, which will show up to all users in a county, will include a message with no more than 90 characters, and late-model smartphones will sound a special tone and vibrate. The system will be free and it will not require users to sign up for the service.

The system is part of a larger initiative by the FCC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) called the Emergency Alert System (EAS), which can also send out public safety warnings from the president as well as AMBER alerts from state and local authorities. Users will be able to opt out of both weather alerts and AMBER alerts, but not presidential alerts.

U.S. carriers serving nearly 97% of subscribers are participating in the initiative, including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA. It’s unclear, however, which smartphones are capable of receiving the alerts.

According to a Sprint spokeswoman, most Sprint smartphones have been upgraded to be able to receive the alerts, and all upcoming devices will have the functionality as well. iPhones are not on that list yet, and according to weather service spokeswoman Susan Buchanan they should be joining the system this fall, but she couldn’t answer whether that means new iPhones, old models or both.

Recently we’ve seen several similar initiatives, mostly based on social media. The Weather Channel is building a social media weather alert system, and Dallas authorities turned to Twitter for severe weather warnings earlier this year.

How do you like the idea of receiving these types of alerts on your smartphone? Tell us in the comments.

Read more >>

Some like it hot (or cold): How weather affects carbon emissions

By David Roberts

As we take climate change more seriously, we’ll need better ways of measuring carbon emissions. That doesn’t just mean reporting and monitoring systems, but also better conceptual models, a sense of how best to compare emissions between regions or countries.

Among other things, better metrics will allow us to craft more sophisticated policy. The Kyoto arrangement — “let’s all go back to where we were in 1990? — is, to put it kindly, a blunt weapon, insensitive to participating countries’ varying levels of wealth, population trajectories, native industries, and energy needs. Expectations for any country to reduce its carbon emissions ought to be sensitive to its individual circumstances.

So we need richer, more nuanced ways of figuring out who’s doing well on carbon and who’s doing poorly. That brings us to an interesting recent paper in American Scientist called “Accounting for Climate in Ranking Countries’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle. Their insight is simple: Carbon emission rankings ought to be adjusted to account for local climates. Sweden uses more energy to keep people at a comfortable temperature than, say, Greece does, but that doesn’t mean Greece is doing better than Sweden on climate policy. It just means Sweden is really cold! That’s not Sweden’s fault. We need some way of comparing Sweden and Greece that doesn’t give Greece an unfair advantage for the happy accident of being located on the Mediterranean.

So Sivak and Schoettle have developed rankings that take into account “the general heating and cooling demands that are imposed by the climate of a given country.” How does that change things? They have a fascinating chart on this, but it takes some explaining.

In each column of the chart below, the top 10 lowest carbon emitters are on top, the highest emitters on bottom. In the left column, countries are ranked purely by per capita emissions. In the middle column, they are ranked by per capita emissions combined with per capita GDP. In the right hand column, they are ranked by per capita emissions combined with per capita GDP combined with ” a population-weighted average of the total heating and cooling degree days.” Colors show new entrants. (Click to embiggen.)

Sivak & Schoettle: per capita climate emissions

A couple of things jump out at me. Sweden, Iceland, and Switzerland, three cold countries with strong climate policies, emerge as low emitters once they are forgiven their coldness. Australia becomes one of the big emitters. And the United States, a top emitter on a pure per capita basis, falls off that list when GDP and climate are taken into account.

Sivak and Schoettle tease out more effects of the climate data:

Taking climate into account improves emissions rankings for countries with relatively high heating and cooling degree days. For example, the United States moves from the 110th spot (when only population size and economic output are included) to the 100th spot (when climate demands are considered as well); the United Kingdom moves from 63 to 58, Germany from 75 to 55, Sweden from 27 to 9, China from 149 to 147 and India from 125 to 116.

But not everyone comes out for the better under the new approach. Countries with relatively low heating and cooling degree days get a less favorable ranking when climate is added into the equation. Among the countries with a substantial worsening are Australia (which goes from 126 to 151), Brazil (52 to 75), Israel (48 to 76) and Mexico (93 to 117).

Huh. Turns out Australia and Brazil have been coasting on their good looks weather!

Are there implications here, not just in terms of fairness in international negotiations, but in terms of national policy? I think there are. It’s worth examining an assumption expressed earlier on in the paper:

The population of a country cannot choose the local climate, of course; that is determined by geographical location.

This is obviously true on one level. The U.S. cannot change its “average of heating and cooling days.” What can anyone do about the weather?

But that’s not to say the U.S. is powerless over where people settle within it. There are temperate places and places of extreme warmth or cold in the U.S. People could move from the latter to the former! I was once talking about this problem with Matt Yglesias, in the context of Chicago’s efforts to reduce its emissions, and he said, “the best thing Chicago could do for the climate is to encourage people to leave Chicago and move to Boca Raton.”

That’s … [shudder] … awful. But there’s some validity to it. Obviously governments aren’t going to start engineering mass internal migrations, at least not unless things get really bad really fast. But it’s not crazy to think that, say, the tax code might be weighted to encourage settlement in temperate areas. It’s not crazy to think that population density in temperate areas might become a policy desiderata. Perhaps one day we’ll see migration to temperate areas as a powerful climate policy lever.

It sounds a little crazy now, but lots of things that sound crazy now are going to sound a whole lot less crazy once the climate sh*t hits the fan. Meet y’all in Boca Raton?

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//climate-change/some-like-it-hot-or-cold-how-weather-affects-carbon-emissions/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }
Read more >>

Leading climbing outfit cancels 2012 Everest trip due to warm weather dangers

By Stephen Lacey

A version of this article originally appeared on Climate Progress.

Climate change is already keeping climbers off Everest. (Photo by Mandala Travel.)

Mount Everest has become a microcosm for the rest of the planet. Once an isolated place for adventurers, the mountain is now extremely crowded, polluted, and facing dramatic changes as global temperatures rise.

As commercial climbing outfits have blossomed over the last two decades, more and more climbers are flocking to Everest. The overcrowding problem became clear earlier this month when the mountain was clogged by a traffic jam of roughly 150 people trying to reach the summit — contributing to the death of four climbers.

The traffic jam made big news. But a couple weeks before the incident, another major event took place on the mountain that only got attention from within the climbing community.

Russell Brice, head of the leading Everest climbing operation Himalayan Experience, announced that he would pull his team off Everest, citing unprecedented temperatures that made climbing too dangerous. Heeding advice from experienced Sherpas worried about the warmth, Brice decided to cancel his 2012 expedition because of unstable ice.

In a blog post, Brice’s crew explained the decision:

Already at the beginning of the season, the Sherpas were saying that it was too warm when they were setting up base camp. They were working in T-shirts.Our Sherpas continuously reported that the icefall is more dangerous and the “popcorn area” is more active this year. They were not worried about taking the risk but they were very aware of the increased hazards.In 2011, this risk of the looming seracs on the West Ridge was more acceptable as the debris fell into the Bergschrund, a deep crevasse between the glacier and the mountain. Then we were about 100 meters [328 feet] away from where debris was falling, however, this year the Bergschrund is filled and there is no protection at all. The route has dropped off and now we are only 25 meters to 30 meters [82 feet to 98 feet] away from debris, which is constantly covering the route.When we first arrived at base camp at the beginning of April, the crack in the ice block on the West Ridge was pretty small — now it is probably between 5 and 7 meters [16 feet and 23 feet] wide. This means that the pressure within the ice blocks is huge. So far, we only had small pieces come down, however, there is certainly the potential for a huge collapse, which could kill and injure a large number of people.We have been recording the temperature at 2 a.m. when the Sherpas are usually leaving to go through the icefall. There have only been a few days when it was colder than -10 degrees C [14 degrees F], which is unusual and not really cold enough to be moving through the icefall.Now, it is only the beginning of May and lakes are forming at base camp. Today, on May 8, it is as warm as it is normally at the end of the season and it will only get warmer, which means the danger in the icefall will increase.

This is not the first warning sign for climbers on Everest. Apa Sherpa, a Nepali “super Sherpa” who has been up Everest more than 20 times, has expressed deep concern for the changes he’s seen on Everest over the last two decades.

“In 1989, when I first climbed Everest, there was a lot of snow and ice, but now most of it has just become bare rock. That, as a result, is causing more rockfalls which is a danger to the climbers,” he recently told AFP News in an interview.

In 2011, the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development issued an assessment of glaciers in the Himalayas, finding that glaciers in the region have declined by 21 percent over the last 30 years.

Increasingly unstable ice and rock are making Everest ascents more dangerous. Greg Paul, a climber with Himalayan Experience, explained the decision to abandon the mountain this year: “Russell [Brice] expects an accident of catastrophic proportions to possibly [sic] hit the icefall.”

var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1322003100161';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'strip';var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.grist.org//climate-change/leading-climbing-outfit-cancels-2012-everest-trip-due-to-warm-weather-dangers/';if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); }
Read more >>
Next Post