In general, television meteorologists have been the most skeptical of all atmospheric scientists about global warming and climate change. There are a variety of reasons for this, including lack of training in climatology, most of their time spent looking at short-term weather models, and working for television stations which run conservative programming. This is changing as more evidence for warming climate is collected over time, but there are still a variety of viewpoints.
I like to compare weather models to Ferraris-sleek, fast, and visually pretty, able to reach 60 mph quickly but awfully expensive to run for a long time (although if you can afford a Ferrari, you can probably afford the gas and the insurance too). By comparison, climate models are more like Dodge Ram trucks–reliable, able to carry a lot over sometimes rough terrain, and able to work efficiently for a long time, but not necessarily that pretty to look at (some of you may disagree) and not able to speed up as fast. Both of them have four wheels and a drive-train, but they are designed to different things. Weather models are designed to work quickly, get details of evolving weather right, and provide as good a picture as you could want of what the weather will be right over the next few days. Climate models don’t get the details of individual weather events correct, but are able to forecast general atmospheric patterns which drive long-term climate, and can give accurate results when run for long time periods.
Here’s a recent commentary from one television meteorologist, Mike Nelson, who discusses his take on climate change and how he communicates it to his viewers. You might find some of his analogies useful in discussing changing climate with those you work with, or even your friends and families.
