Today, survivors of Superstorm Sandy and other fossil-fueled impacts will gather at the White House, and on the eve of Lincoln’s birthday, call on President Obama to respond to this generation’s greatest moral challenge. When they do, they will echo the concerns of governors across the country, who are already witnessing the consequences of unabated fossil fuel pollution, and are calling attention to it in their own State of the State addresses…

In July, Colorado was struck with the most destructive wildfire in the state’s history, blazing through 165,000 acres and 700 homes. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper noted the wildfire season as a reason to work together on energy:

Many scientists believe that our severe drought, the bark beetle epidemic and the terrible fire season are further evidence of climate change.

While no state can address the issue in isolation, reducing pollutants and promoting sustainable development, ought to be common ground for all of us.

Early September saw 110 wilfires spark up across Central Washington, with no reprieve from the rain. Newly sworn-in Washington Governor Jay Inslee had this to say in his inaugural address:

It’s also clear to me that we face grave and immediate danger if we fail to act. Nine of 10 of the hottest years on record happened in the past decade. We’ve had epic flooding, searing drought and devastating wildfires, including last summer’s fires in Central Washington and the rising tides along our coast.

Our Pacific Northwest waters, especially in Puget Sound, are becoming too acidic, forcing parts of our shellfish industry to move last year. In Eastern Washington, our long tradition in agriculture could be threatened if snowpack declines. Water stored as snow is money in the bank for Washington’s rural economies, but the bank could fail if we don’t act.

As a parent and a grandparent, I cannot consciously accept the dangers of climate change for my family or yours.

Later in September, a full three weeks before the end of melting season, the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced that the previous record low for Arctic sea ice had been broken. With 3.5 million Californians living within three feet of sea level, Governor Jerry Brown dedicated a significant portion of his State of the State to the climate crisis:

When we think about California’s future, no long term liability presents as great a danger to our well-being as the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

According to the latest report from the World Bank, carbon dioxide emissions are the highest in 15 million years. At today’s emissions rate, the planet could warm by more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, an event unknown in human experience. California is extremely vulnerable because of our Mediterranean climate, long coastline and reliance on snowpack for so much of our water supply.

Tipping points can be reached before we even know we have passed them. This is a different kind of challenge than we ever faced. It requires acting now even though the worst consequences are perhaps decades in the future.

Again California is leading the way. We are reducing emissions as required by AB 32 and we will meet our goal of getting carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

In June, the US Geological Survey issued a report warning that sea level rise along the Atlantic coast, from Cape Hatteras, NC to Boston, MA is accelerating three times faster than the global rate. With his state situated in the center of this sea level rise “hot spot,” Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley ended his State of the State with a clear call for climate action:

We are one of the most vulnerable states in our country to the impact of sea-level rise. Climate disruption is real. Climate change is not an ideological issue any more than gravity is. It is physics, pure and simple.

Maryland might not be able to change what people in India or China do with respect to climate. We can, however, use the prospect of a carbon constrained world as the means to invent a more prosperous future, and to drive innovation, education, industry, jobs, and growth.

Superstorm Sandy devastated the Northeast, and flooded communities like the Jersey Shore are still struggling to recover. The storm was one of the most powerful climate impacts ever to hit the United States, and Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was not coy about fingering the culprit:

As we continue our slow recovery from a devastating recession and a devastating storm, I believe Vermont is again poised to lead.

We are on the right path. We are focused on getting Vermont off our addiction to oil and building renewables, and we now have more high tech green jobs per capita than any other state.

From the drought-stricken fields of the Midwest to the Sandy-flooded Rockaways, governors, legislators, and everyday Americans will tune in to the State of the Union tomorrow night to see whether President Obama will answer the call, and begin to shape his climate legacy.

Why do people watch the local weather report, anyway? That was the question floating just below the surface of last week’s 40th annual broadcast meteorology conference in Boston. Just like their print counterparts, local news stations are being buffeted by the winds of online innovation, and weather is particularly vulnerable. Today, detailed forecasts are just a few clicks away. So why would anyone bother to tune in at 6 or 11?

Nearly every meteorologist we heard from came back to the same answer: trust. As D.C.-area meteorologist Joe Witte noted, local TV news consistently remains the most trusted source of information, even as the public’s trust in cable news and other media sources has steadily declined.

What drives this public trust? In his conference presentation, WJLA meteorologist Bob Ryan had some answers. Ryan postulated that the familiarity of a face keeps viewers coming back. “Local trusts local” was a phrase heard frequently at the conference, and perhaps it explains why people stick with their local weather reporter over digital (and faceless) alternatives.

But it’s clear that our relationship with local meteorologists goes beyond just a familiar face. Because at times of danger, weathercasters help people make important decisions in a way that raw data cannot. In his presentation, Ryan emphasized the importance of clear and unambiguous language in the face of danger. He listed numerous examples of weathercasters around the nation saving lives by removing ambiguity and laying out consequences of bad decisions when tornadoes, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events are on the horizon. “Words have meaning,” Ryan told the audience. Viewers rely on metorologists to help them make decisions in the face of uncertain risk. There is, essentially, no online equivalent to a meteorologist staring into the camera and saying “If you go outside and look you will die.”

While few meteorologists seem willing to make the connection, the communication capabilities required for extreme weather events are analogous to how weathercasters should talk about climate change. The science is clear — our carbon pollution is poisoning the weather. Climate change has already harmed Americans with greater floods, droughts, and heat waves. Burning fossil fuels comes with a terrible price, one that is growing at an exponential rate.

Weathercasters are in a unique position to communicate the clear and present danger of human-induced climate change. But being a climatecaster can also help them to beat back the challenge of digital media. Viewers tune into their local weather report because their meteorologist provide perspectives behind the numbers. Carol Lynn Alpert of the Museum of Science in Boston presented on her experience integrating scientific content into local station broadcasts.. The Museum conducted a double blind study, and found that scientific reports were highly rated by viewers, and among the most popular programming. People are fascinated with the drivers of weather. Helping them understand the impact of climate change, especially locally, gives weathercasters an advantage in an increasingly fractured media landscape.

Again and again we heard murmurs from TV meteorologists about the generational differences in consuming weather information, and suggestions as to how the profession might adapt to serve very different audiences, including a lengthy presentation from CNN meteorologist Sarah Dillingham about building and maintaining a social media presence.

But if you ask us, maintaining the prominence of local weather reports isn’t just about mastering Twitter or Facebook. It also requires providing audiences with clear information about the science, risks, and threats associated with extreme weather and local climate change impacts, and drawing a tangible connection for their viewers. This idea was reinforced at the “short course” for the station scientist, which concluded the conference. John Anderson of the New England Aquarium discussed how to relate stories of a warming and acidifying ocean to audiences in fishing communities and coastal areas. A Q+A panel on climate change followed, and climate scientists John Abraham, Kerry Emanuel, and Kevin Trenberth gave tips for how best to communicate climate impacts. “You’re all used to dealing with probability; we’re talking about the same thing with events like drought,” said Trenberth.

Following the conference, the AMS released a long-awaited update to its information statement on climate change, which states that “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.”

The AMS has it right. But the question remains, when viewers tune into their local weather will they get the same message? The answer may have a big impact on whether those viewers keep coming back. If the competitive advantage of local weather reporters is viewer trust and clear communication, then the conclusion for broadcast meteorologists is apparent: to ensure the continued relevance of their profession, not to mention the well-being of their viewers, TV meteorologists must forecast the facts about climate change.

Weathercaster Jim Gandy, one of the nation’s most effective climate change communicators, broadcasts in South Carolina, one of the most conservative states in the nation, providing a powerful example for weathercasters across the country.

Forecast the Facts staff caught up with Gandy at the American Meteorological Society’s 40th annual Broadcast Meteorology Conference, in Boston, Mass. With a black cowboy hat and light southern drawl, Gandy told us he started investigating climate science in 2005 after geology professors at a nearby university asked him, “What do you think about this climate change thing?” Gandy took the question seriously, familiarizing himself with the peer-reviewed literature, and learning about how human activities are changing the weather and climate.

In 2011, Gandy partnered with George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication and the nonprofit Climate Central to develop a program called Climate Matters, a segment that places his weathercasts in the context of climate change. Gandy also blogs regularly about climate. Broadcasting in South Carolina, Gandy was well aware of the risks. “I’m not from a red state, I’m from a dark red state,” he told us. Like his friend and peer Dan Satterfield, a weathercaster based until recently in Huntsville, Ala., Gandy began speaking out about climate change fully prepared to face backlash from his politically conservative audience.

But a funny thing happened: The backlash never came. Rather than facing an onslaught of angry phone calls, Gandy found that many viewers were fascinated by his reports connecting climate change with their daily lives. His report on climate change’s impact on poison ivy, for instance, received praise from viewers who stopped him on the street to thank him.

Never fear! Better climate coverage is here! (Photo by Shutterstock.)

Unfortunately, Gandy is an outlier among weathercasters, who are some of the America’s most trusted public messengers on climate change [PDF]. Even among weathercasters who are convinced about the science of climate change, 39 percent report [PDF] that a perceived “lack of viewer support” prevents them from including climate information in their nightly broadcasts. But if numerous public surveys [PDF] and the urging of thousands of Forecast the Facts members aren’t enough to persuade the more cautious in the profession, Gandy’s experience should be.

Later in the day, we learned from Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication (4C), that the positive impact of Gandy’s reports is not just anecdotal. Maibach’s team surveyed the Columbia, S.C., media market before and after Gandy launched “Climate Matters,” asking questions about climate change to viewers of Gandy’s station, and comparing them with responses from viewers who tuned in to other stations. 4C’s hypotheses heading in to the experiment were borne out. Viewers of Gandy’s station learned more about climate change than viewers of other local newscasts. Furthermore, the more viewers watched Gandy’s program, the more informed they were about climate change and the science behind it. So, to review: More effective climate communication leads to greater public understanding, with some personal gratitude heaped on top. In Columbia, S.C.

Maibach told the audience of over 200 of the nation’s top weathercasters that they are second only to scientists in the public’s eye as trusted messengers on climate change. Unlike scientists, however, TV meteorologists are professional communicators with incredible access to the public. “You are the Bruce Springsteen of television,” Maibach said. “You are the reason many people turn on the television each day. You are the only ones who can fill the stadium.”

As we spoke to TV meteorologists throughout the day, we continued to hear from many that climate change feels untouchable, that the public won’t be receptive, that it’s too “political” or “controversial” to talk about. But the experiences of Gandy, Satterfield, and other brave “climatecasters” proves otherwise. Presenting established science to viewers and broadening the context of weather reporting isn’t just doable — it’s welcome, and sorely needed.