The important role of weather presenters in educating/persuading people about the climate crisis

[Snowmoon]

(Preface: the following is based on the acceptance of the opinions of an overwhelming number of scientists that man-made climate change is real and is an extremely serious problem which has arisen due to decades of governmental inaction across the world)

I've been meaning to post this for a while, but the news in the past few days about this September being the joint-warmest on record in the UK and the warmest across the world as a whole has finally encouraged me to get on with it. The existential threat that’s presented by the climate crisis, which will require drastic remedial action by governments, businesses and the general public alike to try to avoid a global catastrophe, is very real with unusual and often cataclysmic weather events occurring increasingly frequently.

However, there are still many people here in the UK who don’t fully understand, or don’t sufficiently care about, the dire situation we’re in, and who don’t appreciate the urgency with which action needs to be taken internationally. Polling suggests that as many as 50% of people in the UK hare unwilling to change their behaviour or lifestyle at all to help address the climate emergency. Clearly there’s an ongoing and crucial need to educate people about climate change so that they more quickly come to appreciate the truly desperate position that the planet finds itself in solely because of the actions of humans.

Weather forecasts are seen by everyone frequently and I strongly believe that weather (and news) presenters have a very important role to play in getting vital messages across regarding the climate. However, I feel this is largely proving to be a lost opportunity at present for reasons that I’ll explain below. Just as an aside, someone may correct me but I didn't see any weather presenter give any indication at any point during the month that the UK was heading for its equal warmest September on record. The same has been true for other record-breaking months.

Whilst it’s human nature to a certain extent for people to celebrate warmer temperatures and disparage cooler ones, I feel very much that weather and news presenters should no longer generally go down that road, given the now dire state of the climate crisis; language and tone are extremely important. Unfortunately, things seem to have gone the wrong way in this regard. More than ever, above average temperatures are presented with relish whilst below average temperatures are portrayed apologetically. Warmer temperatures are understated, whilst colder temperatures are exaggerated. How often are below average temperatures called "disappointing", average temperatures described using terms such as "no great shakes" and above average temperatures referred to as something like "not too bad" by presenters?

The terminology has even subtly changed in recent years to emphasize this point. For example, I would say that the word “chilly” is being much more frequently used by weather presenters than before to describe temperatures that are only a little below average. It's reached the stage now where it almost feels like they're itching to be able to use the word in forecasts! Indeed, I’ve seen 16C nonsensically described as “chilly” by weather presenters (I won't name names!) on a number of occasions, but really adjectives used to describe weather should be based on absolute temperatures rather than relative ones, or at least properly matched with an appropriate term for the opposite warm temperature equivalent. Consider the following descriptive match-ups:

• Bitter <-> Scorching
• Freezing <-> Sweltering
• Chilly <-> Hot
• Very cold <-> Very warm
• Cold <-> Warm
• Cool/below average <-> Mild/above average

I’m sure there’s very little in the above which can be regarded as being contentious. Just to continue my point regarding the misuse of “chilly” - a spring/autumn temperature that’s 4 or more degrees above the average would never ever be described as “hot” so, equally, temperatures that are 4 or more degrees below the average should never be described as “chilly”, at least not until they reach mid to low single figures. Professional weather forecasting is completely founded on science, so it ought to be the case that the adjectives used to by presenters to describe temperatures (and indeed weather in general) should also be driven by science and not by subjectivity or colloquialisms.

Moreover, whereas temperatures that are below average are almost always commented upon as such, either directly or obliquely, the opposite isn’t true for above average temperatures, which often pass without comment. Even when a comment is made, the word “mild” is overused. In fact the English language has too few adjectives to describe degrees of mildness/warmth, but that’s a challenge which weather presenters must embrace rather than avoid. If more people are to better appreciate the desperate climate situation, more balance has to be provided in the way temperatures and weather are described and, if anything, greater emphasis placed on the abnormality of consistently warmer than average temperatures and the unusual lack of colder temperatures.

It’s not just about the words and phrases used by presenters though, average temperatures could be shown on weather graphics much more often than they are at present, for clear and obvious comparison. I know that this is done on Good Morning Britain now, which is welcome. More attention should also be drawn to extreme patterns, such as record or near record temperatures for a given month, the lack of rain or increased rainfall as appropriate, comparisons showing an accelerating reduction in seasonal frosts, the impact of abnormal weather on flora and fauna etc etc. Rather than this being part of the normal weather narrative, it still tends to be the case that you have to search for a lot of this rather than it being more in your face as the climate crisis warrants.

To conclude, I firmly believe that weather and news presenters need to consign the colder weather = bad, warmer weather = good mantra to history, and start using language, backed up by the extended use of climatic trend data, supported by easy to understand graphics, which will provide information that more accurately reflects the awful situation that we find ourselves in. Hopefully, weather and news presenters will then play an important role in educating and convincing more people in this country regarding the climate emergency.

Many thanks for taking the trouble to read this if you've got this far!

[WYorksWeather]

To focus on the language issue - yes, agree that there is a question about what descriptors you use for temperatures. The problem is that some words that are used are relative to time of year or season. For example, a maximum temperature in the mid to high teens might be described as 'cool' in July, but 'exceptionally mild' in November!

I think the best weather forecasters are generally able to make the distinction - with phrasings like these.

In July:

"Whilst it might still feel pleasant enough under sunny skies, temperatures will be struggling in the mid to high teens, which will give it something of an autumnal feel, with temperatures more typical of September than July."

In November:

"The sun is quite low in the sky and so it will still feel quite chilly near any exposed coasts, but with temperatures in the mid to high teens, it will be exceptionally mild for the time of year"

 

 

 

[alexisj9]

Laura in GMB does talk about climate quite often, and I find Liam quite I formative too, also itv.

Problem is though, there are many who don't listen, won't listen or even think that weather presenters are being paid extra to push agenda's. 

I think though more forecasters should talk about climate change.

[Scuba steve]

Problem is climate change fatigue the more it’s pushed the more people switch off ,either not interested or through a sense of hopelessness 

[Mixer 85]

Personally I’d prefer forecasters to stay in their lane. I’m sure when people tune in to watch the forecast it’s because they want to know what the weather’s going to be like and not get an earful about climate change. 

Also the practicalities could get a bit silly. Does climate change get a mention every time the weather does something outside the envelope of averages, which is practically all the time. 

[alexisj9]

7 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

Personally I’d prefer forecasters to stay in their lane. I’m sure when people tune in to watch the forecast it’s because they want to know what the weather’s going to be like and not get an earful about climate change. 

Also the practicalities could get a bit silly. Does climate change get a mention every time the weather does something outside the envelope of averages, which is practically all the time. 

Laura has a keen interest in all things space too, ps, weather stats are in a weather presenters job description.

10 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

Personally I’d prefer forecasters to stay in their lane. I’m sure when people tune in to watch the forecast it’s because they want to know what the weather’s going to be like and not get an earful about climate change. 

Also the practicalities could get a bit silly. Does climate change get a mention every time the weather does something outside the envelope of averages, which is practically all the time. 

No is the answer to that.

[Mixer 85]

Morning @alexisj9, I don’t see a major problem with mentioning climate change from time to time as a talking point, as similarly astronomical events get mentioned but I don’t think that’s what the original poster was alluding to.

The original poster from what I can tell is calling for a more active role from forecasters in promoting climate change with an alarmist view. This under the guise of alerting and educating more people. The problem here is the assumption that people still need to be told about climate change, but, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past 20yrs you’re going to be aware of climate. 
 

There’s also the rabbit hole of attribution, lines could vary easily get blurred there and then it’s possible that many might construe what should be a weather forecast as political activism, depending on how thick the agenda is laid on.

 

[Snowmoon]

10 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Personally I’d prefer forecasters to stay in their lane. I’m sure when people tune in to watch the forecast it’s because they want to know what the weather’s going to be like and not get an earful about climate change. 

Also the practicalities could get a bit silly. Does climate change get a mention every time the weather does something outside the envelope of averages, which is practically all the time. 

I'm not sure how something which manifests itself in extreme weather patterns is outside the lane of weather presenters? If it's not in their lane, whose lane is it in? The climate crisis has reached a stage now where it can't keep being swept under the carpet, its seriousness needs to start being reflected on prime-time television.

Obviously weather presenters shouldn't have to refer to it all the time, but there's no reason why average temps can't be shown routinely and unusual trends pointed out. Something that should happen, for example, is that temps like 30 degrees in the shade not to be referred to as "glorious", whilst temps a couple of degrees below average are mentioned apologetically with sad faces. That kind of thing just potentially encourages people to be more blasé about climate change because higher temps are always portrayed as a good thing to be yearned for.

[Snowmoon]

1 hour ago, Mixer 85 said:

Morning @alexisj9, I don’t see a major problem with mentioning climate change from time to time as a talking point, as similarly astronomical events get mentioned but I don’t think that’s what the original poster was alluding to.

The original poster from what I can tell is calling for a more active role from forecasters in promoting climate change with an alarmist view. This under the guise of alerting and educating more people. The problem here is the assumption that people still need to be told about climate change, but, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past 20yrs you’re going to be aware of climate. 
 

There’s also the rabbit hole of attribution, lines could vary easily get blurred there and then it’s possible that many might construe what should be a weather forecast as political activism, depending on how thick the agenda is laid on.

It's not a guise, it's providing information which people aren't currently being given and they do need to be given it, because far too many people still don't give a stuff about it or think it's for someone else to deal with whilst they just carry on blithely ignoring it. There isn't time to mess about over it anymore, prevarication and looking the other way have brought us to a precipice.

Implementing the measures required to deal with climate change should be apolitical - it's simply not something that can be used as a political football because governments across the world won't take the required steps if they don't think voters feel sufficiently strongly about it. Decades of inaction has brought us to a point where further inaction and greenwashing is unacceptable. As this can be levelled at all main political parties, then I don't think there needs to be concern about activism, just more focus on presenting relevant facts and changing the language. History is littered with all and sundry only waking up and smelling the coffee about things when it was too late.

[Snowmoon]

11 hours ago, WYorksWeather said:

To focus on the language issue - yes, agree that there is a question about what descriptors you use for temperatures. The problem is that some words that are used are relative to time of year or season. For example, a maximum temperature in the mid to high teens might be described as 'cool' in July, but 'exceptionally mild' in November!

I think the best weather forecasters are generally able to make the distinction - with phrasings like these.

In July:

"Whilst it might still feel pleasant enough under sunny skies, temperatures will be struggling in the mid to high teens, which will give it something of an autumnal feel, with temperatures more typical of September than July."

In November:

"The sun is quite low in the sky and so it will still feel quite chilly near any exposed coasts, but with temperatures in the mid to high teens, it will be exceptionally mild for the time of year"

In your first example, you refer to temps about 4 or 5 degrees below average as "struggling", like that's a bad thing, and equating them to being autumnal. What would be said for temps 4 or 5 degrees above average? Typically these days, presenters won't comment on it at all or will say something like it's "pleasantly warm".

In your second example, why did you use "quite chilly" rather than "cooler"? Presenters these days often skip "cool", "cold" and "very cold" and go straight to "chilly", which is my point.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Snowmoon

[Mixer 85]

1 hour ago, Snowmoon said:

It's not a guise, it's providing information which people aren't currently being given and they do need to be given it, because far too many people still don't give a stuff about it or think it's for someone else to deal with whilst they just carry on blithely ignoring it. There isn't time to mess about over it anymore, prevarication and looking the other way have brought us to a precipice.

Implementing the measures required to deal with climate change should be apolitical - it's simply not something that can be used as a political football because governments across the world won't take the required steps if they don't think voters feel sufficiently strongly about it. Decades of inaction has brought us to a point where further inaction and greenwashing is unacceptable. As this can be levelled at all main political parties, then I don't think there needs to be concern about activism, just more focus on presenting relevant facts and changing the language. History is littered with all and sundry only waking up and smelling the coffee about things when it was too late.

Truth is not everyone shares the view that we’re headed toward a climate catastrophe, and again we run the risk of labelling every unusual weather event as being connected to climate change without the evidence to support it. In my opinion that’s political activism to try actively change public opinion.

 

With regard to the wording and phrases like pleasant vs chilly. That’s simply describing how the weather feels. For humans warmth is pleasant whilst cold is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. I see no problem with a forecast describing what physiological effects to expect when headed outdoors.

[ANYWEATHER]

The word cool when describing temperatures around freezing. Nothing cool about that phrase. Should only be used in the summer when temperatures have been hot and temperatures have or are forecast to be lower...! Terminology is often used wrongly with weather forecasts

[WYorksWeather]

11 hours ago, Snowmoon said:

In your first example, you refer to temps about 4 or 5 degrees below average as "struggling", like that's a bad thing, and equating them to being autumnal. What would be said for temps 4 or 5 degrees above average? Typically these days, presenters won't comment on it at all or will say something like it's "pleasantly warm".

In your second example, why did you use "quite chilly" rather than "cooler"? Presenters these days often skip "cool", "cold" and "very cold" and go straight to "chilly", which is my point.

I was just using those as examples of how forecasters can portray things differently. You're right that wording is difficult.

For what its worth, I'm very convinced around the issue of climate change, I'm just not sure it is necessarily something that is easy for every weather forecaster to talk about. Meteorology and climatology seem similar but there are quite a lot of distinctions - if you make rash comments it can actually reduce trust. What is needed are more high quality science and data journalists, and good science communicators. Not all weather forecasters are necessarily suited to doing that sort of work.

For example, there was a statement made shortly after the event by Al Gore to the effect that Hurricane Katrina was caused or at least worsened by climate change. The effect of climate change on hurricanes is quite nuanced and still somewhat contested, and that sort of unsubstantiated statement can actually backfire. Especially since much less was known about that specific issue 15 years ago. If he had spoken about heatwaves, well that's much safer ground.

I also think that most weather forecasters do a good job when talking about extreme conditions, for example like last July. I remember a lot of forecasters remarking that this was not just another heatwave, urging people to be careful, and warning of very significant impacts and that the situation was unprecedented.

[Snowmoon]

10 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Truth is not everyone shares the view that we’re headed toward a climate catastrophe, and again we run the risk of labelling every unusual weather event as being connected to climate change without the evidence to support it. In my opinion that’s political activism to try actively change public opinion.

With regard to the wording and phrases like pleasant vs chilly. That’s simply describing how the weather feels. For humans warmth is pleasant whilst cold is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. I see no problem with a forecast describing what physiological effects to expect when headed outdoors.

I hoped to imply with my preface that I didn't want to get into a debate about whether climate change is real or not, or whether the consequences of it might not be as bad as is being predicted (and is already taking place). I prefer to go with the conclusions of a vast number of scientists and trust them to know what they're talking about. I don't believe it's something where language should be toned down to protect the sensibilities of deniers, because too much is at stake. That's my final word on that particular topic as the thread wasn't intended to be about that.

In the instances where temps of 16C have been described as "chilly", are there physiological effects to be concerned about then? It doesn't seem too hard to me to choose the words to use based on what the actual temperature is and not introduce subjectivity into it. "Chilly" to my mind should equate to mid to low single figures.

Also, hot weather is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

[Mixer 85]

8 hours ago, Snowmoon said:

I hoped to imply with my preface that I didn't want to get into a debate about whether climate change is real or not, or whether the consequences of it might not be as bad as is being predicted (and is already taking place). I prefer to go with the conclusions of a vast number of scientists and trust them to know what they're talking about. I don't believe it's something where language should be toned down to protect the sensibilities of deniers, because too much is at stake. That's my final word on that particular topic as the thread wasn't intended to be about that.

In the instances where temps of 16C have been described as "chilly", are there physiological effects to be concerned about then? It doesn't seem too hard to me to choose the words to use based on what the actual temperature is and not introduce subjectivity into it. "Chilly" to my mind should equate to mid to low single figures.

Also, hot weather is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

It’s important I stress that I’m not trying to debate the reality of climate change but what you appear to be advocating is to use weather forecasts as a means for instilling fear, the necessity of which is very much dependent on future outlook which is still very much up for debate. 

You claim the consequences of climate change are already taking place, if by that you’re referring to ‘catastrophic’ consequences then I really don’t see much evidence for that. Even the IPCC reports show little evidence of anything apocalyptic in the short to long term. 
 

All debate aside, what do we expect can be gained by further educating and alarming the public? The poor and lower middle classes are stretched to their limits already and don’t have the means to do anything meaningful. The wealthy and upper middle class I’m sure are already well versed on climate change and therefore already do what they can or choose not to do anything.

[Snowmoon]

4 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

It’s important I stress that I’m not trying to debate the reality of climate change but what you appear to be advocating is to use weather forecasts as a means for instilling fear, the necessity of which is very much dependent on future outlook which is still very much up for debate. 

You claim the consequences of climate change are already taking place, if by that you’re referring to ‘catastrophic’ consequences then I really don’t see much evidence for that. Even the IPCC reports show little evidence of anything apocalyptic in the short to long term. 
 

All debate aside, what do we expect can be gained by further educating and alarming the public? The poor and lower middle classes are stretched to their limits already and don’t have the means to do anything meaningful. The wealthy and upper middle class I’m sure are already well versed on climate change and therefore already do what they can or choose not to do anything.

Politicians won't do enough to address climate change unless they feel that it's a vote loser not to. As that isn't currently the case, people need to be better informed about the subject so that they understand enough to regard it as a voting issue. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn't an option.

It's an interesting take to regard educating and informing about climate change as "instilling fear". Presumably you'd advocate the withdrawal of health websites and leaflets in case they worry people as well?

[richie3846]

If weather forecasters start going down the route of the climate change agenda, this may have no impact on people's thinking. For starters, many people now use apps to decide what action to take in their lives, regarding the weather we have now. How many people actually watch a weather forecast these days? My instinct tells me, probably not that many, and mainly the older TV watching generation. 

Also, when something is repeatedly forced upon us, especially if we aren't overly on board with something, we do just shut down for self preservation. Our nervous systems go into a survival state, which then unfortunately means, in many cases, we then shut down whenever faced with similar experiences. These shut down people are then more vulnerable to propaganda, because they will feel like there is a safer alternative available, and this will be felt deep in the brain, not on a conscious level. 

There are plenty of sources of information regarding climate change, and even the Met Office itself, publishes the Deep Dive, often covering climate change as part of a wider weather context. 

I believe the excessive focus on climate change, is already a problem for everyday folk. People need to be able to get on with their day to day lives, in the tangible here and now. In my view we need LESS information, not more. Climate topics tend to be activating in our nervous systems, and us Westerners have unhealthy levels of activation in general, with our reward and goal based culture. We are unable to cope with being activated more than 20% of the time, and being made to feel responsible for climate change on so many news feeds, our local councils, the government, it's potentially driving more illness in our bodies and mind. 

We need people to be well in order to be able to live a kinder life for the planet. I don't see how changing language on a weather forecast is going to help the situation at all.  I'd like to see more focus on a shift in culture away from Western ideology, which would in turn, dampen consumerism and reward culture. It's like we are now trying to treat the symptom (excessive consumption) instead of addressing the cause (Western mentality). 

Before anyone mentions how much pollution is being pumped out in the East, it does appear that many Eastern countries have adopted more of a Western thinking pattern over time, creating reward cultures in those countries also.

[jimben]

The climate has always been in constant state of change, without that, life on earth would have been been impossible. These changes, some good some bad, will continue whatever man may think he can do about them. These facts should also be referred to, rather than the narrative continually being one of fear.  

[alexisj9]

On 10/10/2023 at 07:33, Mixer 85 said:

Morning @alexisj9, I don’t see a major problem with mentioning climate change from time to time as a talking point, as similarly astronomical events get mentioned but I don’t think that’s what the original poster was alluding to.

The original poster from what I can tell is calling for a more active role from forecasters in promoting climate change with an alarmist view. This under the guise of alerting and educating more people. The problem here is the assumption that people still need to be told about climate change, but, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past 20yrs you’re going to be aware of climate. 
 

There’s also the rabbit hole of attribution, lines could vary easily get blurred there and then it’s possible that many might construe what should be a weather forecast as political activism, depending on how thick the agenda is laid on.

 

There would be nothing political in it, it would definitely be science based. It's other people that make it political. For some reason, which I don't understand, about many subjects not just cli.ate change, as soon as the subject shows up, a bunch of people start a political debate about it, I'll never get that.

The only political thing about climate change is how it's used by parties, and it's a shame when it's used as a money grab, rather than to actually do something.

IE ulez or whatever it's called is not likely to help climate change much, there are already low traffic zones to reduce pollution near schools and such, which I agree with, but that not a climate thing, it's a health thing. But using energy that natural will help, but actually building infrastructure like water powered plants etc is not often even thought about, and wind farms out at sea have been actively discouraged. That to me shows a disingenuous attitude to climate change, that is not helping with the real message. 

That message now I think should be prepare for climate change, as it happening, and we need the infrastructure to help, re high temps in summer months, and sea defences in the winter, plus more flood management at anytime. Hopefully that type of stuff is being done in the background.

[WYorksWeather]

29 minutes ago, jimben said:

The climate has always been in constant state of change, without that, life on earth would have been been impossible. These changes, some good some bad, will continue whatever man may think he can do about them. These facts should also be referred to, rather than the narrative continually being one of fear.  

Oh come on not this again. There is not a single serious climate scientist the world over who doesn't accept this. In fact, most of the past climate changes are known about because of research into climate change. It's entirely true that the Earth has seen vast changes in climate in the past, from Snowball Earth at one extreme, to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum at the other. It's also totally irrelevant to the question of whether we are causing today's warming.

Past changes were generally geologically slow (many thousands or millions of years). On the few occasions when they weren't, the impact on life was destructive.

Scientists are able to assess the known causes of past natural changes and rule them out. It can't be the sun, because if it were, we'd see heating of all layers of the atmosphere, and we don't. It can't be volcanoes, because there is no statistically significant trend in volcanic activity, and we can accurately simulate the effects of volcanoes, e.g. Pinatubo. The CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere has its own signature in the form of C12/C14 isotope ratios, which are again exactly in line with what the mainstream science says.

 

 

 

[Mixer 85]

1 hour ago, Snowmoon said:

Politicians won't do enough to address climate change unless they feel that it's a vote loser not to. As that isn't currently the case, people need to be better informed about the subject so that they understand enough to regard it as a voting issue. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn't an option.

It's an interesting take to regard educating and informing about climate change as "instilling fear". Presumably you'd advocate the withdrawal of health websites and leaflets in case they worry people as well?

There’s always an expectation on politicians to do more. Question is more of what exactly? I can almost guarantee that the policies you support will not lift the poor out of poverty or raise the standard of living for anyone.
Ultimately climate action is energy policy and energy policy is complicated. Even if wind, solar and heat pumps could fix climate change, there’s no way the above can power a thriving western economy. So bottom line as far as I can see it, you want to use fear and compulsion to coerce people into voting for politicians who are willing to shrink our economies and lower our standards of living, meanwhile China and the global south continue expanding their coal usage.

 

Your last paragraph doesn’t warrant discussion as it’s a rather silly straw man argument.

 

All in all I’ve no problem with the odd mention of climate change under certain circumstances for educational purposes etc, but you have admitted that you want to push an agenda which would render any mention as propagandistic.

 

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, Snowmoon said:

Politicians won't do enough to address climate change unless they feel that it's a vote loser not to. As that isn't currently the case, people need to be better informed about the subject so that they understand enough to regard it as a voting issue. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn't an option.

It's an interesting take to regard educating and informing about climate change as "instilling fear". Presumably you'd advocate the withdrawal of health websites and leaflets in case they worry people as well?

Heat health warning which I agree with, as those that the warning is aimed at, need to know, and they are told themselves, I'm not sure it needs broadcasting as it never used to be, just like cold alerts, not the weather warning side of it, the health ones, again organisations it's aimed at are told about it.

It's only broadcast these days cause many people know the link and talk about it, but it's misunderstood as a weather warning, and generates nothing but moans about the system, which doesn't effect the people moaning in the first place.