Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

ISSN: 0096-3402 (Print) 1938-3282 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbul20

Marshall Shepherd: Connecting atmospheric

science and society

Dawn Stover

To cite this article: Dawn Stover (2019) Marshall Shepherd: Connecting atmospheric science and
society, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75:4, 205-209, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2019.1628517

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1628517

Published online: 28 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbul20
BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS
2019, VOL. 75, NO. 4, 205–209
https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1628517

INTERVIEW

Marshall Shepherd: Connecting atmospheric science and society

Dawn Stover

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this interview, meteorologist and University of Georgia professor J. Marshall Shepherd talks Attribution; climate change;
about why climate literacy remains low in the United States, and how he tries to overcome climate literacy;
climate misinformation and skepticism. He describes the degree to which extreme weather meteorologists;
misinformation; NASA;
events such as major wildfires, hurricanes, and intense rainfall can be attributed to recent climate
weather
change – and discusses the global actions that must be taken to address the climate emergency.
He explains why some TV meteorologists avoid talking about climate change and remain
skeptical that human activities are driving it.

As a meteorologist who has dedicated himself to climate
communication, J. Marshall Shepherd stands at the inter-
section of the atmospheric sciences and popular opinion.
An international expert on weather and climate, Shepherd
is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished
Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the
University of Georgia and director of the university’s
atmospheric sciences program. Previously, he spent
12 years as a research meteorologist at NASA-Goddard
Space Flight Center and was Deputy Project Scientist for
the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, launched
in 2014. He currently chairs NASA’s Earth Science
Advisory Committee. In 2013, he was president of the
American Meteorological Society, the nation’s largest and
oldest professional society in atmospheric sciences. He was
the first African-American to receive a PhD from Florida
State University’s Department of Meteorology.
Shepherd’s research focuses on hydrometeorological
extremes, urban climate, and the intersections of atmo-
spheric sciences with society. For example, he has stu-
died how cities affect temperature, rainfall patterns,
and flooding. But perhaps his biggest contributions
come from his efforts to communicate with the general
public about weather and climate. He is the host of the
“Weather Geeks” podcast, a contributor to Forbes
magazine, and a frequent speaker on television pro-
grams and at public events. His TEDx talks are among
some of the most viewed climate lectures on YouTube.
Bulletin contributing editor Dawn Stover spoke with
Shepherd about his efforts to raise climate literacy; the
connections between extreme weather events and cli-
mate change; and why many TV meteorologists are
skeptical about what’s causing climate change. This
interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Dawn Stover: Your public speaking and your writing

focus on raising climate literacy. Why is it so low?

J. Marshall Shepherd: If you think back to your own

educational experiences – things like weather, climate,
hydrology, oceanography, marine science – we only get
little samples of that in our K-12 training. There’s a
unit here or there, but it’s always taught in isolation;
people are never taught about how our Earth works as
a system. And, secondly, and more importantly,
because of the low science literacy in general, there
are people that take advantage of that by propagating
misinformation about things like climate science or
genetically modified foods. And then thirdly, I would
J. Marshall Shepherd
say, and this gets back to my TED talk that I gave

CONTACT Dawn Stover dstover@thebulletin.org

© 2019 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
206 D. STOVER
recently (Shepherd 2018), I think people just have some
inherent biases or cognitive dissonances about some of
this stuff. They think it’s cold, so that means global
warming doesn’t exist just because of a cold winter day.
DS: Okay, getting back to number two: Where does all
that misinformation come from and how do you deal
with it?
JMS: I don’t like to get into naming names. I will just
say there are entities that are very well-known propa-
gators of misinformation on this topic.
DS: And how do you deal with that?
JMS: There’s this historical sort of notion that aca-
demics and scientists stay out of public discourses,
stay out of the media, stay out of the halls of
Congress. I don’t subscribe to that at all. I think that
we have to leave the ivory tower and be there to fill
these voids, to push back on misinformation. Because if
we aren’t there – the actual experts that have the
information that can be shared with the public – then
these people that have misinformation are happy to fill
the void. So we have to be in that space, whether it be
on TV, in social media, interviews with people like you.
DS: So, what are some of the things that you’ve tried in
your communications that have worked well?
JMS: I’m on social media; I hosted a show on The
Weather Channel and have a podcast called “Weather
Geeks.” I write for Forbes magazine. I briefed Congress
and the Senate. I’ve been asked to do things at the
White House. So I’m in all the places where people
who aren’t scientists are. We have to remember that
most people aren’t climatologists or hydrologists or
biosphere scientists. So it’s certainly understandable
that there may be misunderstandings about some of
the science concepts, but the only way they get that
information is if we are telling them. The one challenge
that we do have with climate change is that the only
scientist that some people in the American public see
on a day-to-day basis is their TV meteorologist. The
good news is, they’re starting to be more active and
aggressive about messaging climate change. We went
through this little period of time over the past 10 years
or so, or maybe even longer, where there were a good
portion of TV meteorologists that were skeptical on
climate change or just didn’t want to talk about it
because they were worried about ratings. But we’re
starting to see that loosen up a bit. So I’m happy to
see that.
DS: Let’s talk about those TV meteorologists. The most
recent survey that I saw, I think it’s a couple years old,
found that basically all of them think that climate
change is happening, but less than half are convinced
that the climate change over the past 50 years has been
mostly or entirely because of human activity (Maibach
et al. 2017).
JMS: [The survey that I’ve seen] wasn’t just TV
meteorologists, it went to all members of the
American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al.
2016).1 TV meteorologists are only 8% of the AMS.
DS: Why are there any meteorologists who aren’t
convinced?
JMS: There are a group of TV meteorologists or broad-
casters that have skewed skeptical, and they’re defi-
nitely still skeptical. I think there are a couple
reasons. I have a PhD, but I also have a bachelor’s
degree in meteorology, from one of the best meteorol-
ogy schools in the nation, Florida State University. I
know, because I went through one of these programs,
that a lot of meteorology undergraduate programs do
not talk a lot about climate. Secondly, a lot of them will
tell you, “Well, I don’t want to talk about it, because
I’m in a conservative market in a conservative state. I
don’t want to tick off my viewers or alienate them.” I
think that’s a flawed argument, because there are TV
meteorologists like Jim Gandy in South Carolina,2 or
Amber Sullins in Arizona, or Greg Fishel in North
Carolina,3 who are very popular TV meteorologists in
their market but also talk a lot about climate change.
DS: A recent piece in Politico said that at the last
American Meteorological Society meeting, there were
some climate scientists and meteorologists suggesting
not to use the words “climate change,” and to stop
talking about who’s responsible for climate change,
and instead just focus on what’s happening and how
it’s affecting communities (Bender 2019). How are
scientists and meteorologists supposed to talk about
climate without using those words?
JMS: This is a part of a communication strategy. You
have to know the audience; you have to know their
value system. There are certain audiences where I never
mention the words “climate change” or “global warm-
ing,” but I’m talking about climate change and global
warming. I might be with a group of conservative
farmers, asking them about whether they have noticed
changes in the frequency of drought in their region. Or
have they noticed changes in their productivity yield of

their crop? Or have they thought about using more-
drought-resistant seeds or rotations for their crop?
DS: I read one of the pieces you wrote recently in
Forbes (Shepherd 2019), criticizing the messaging for
focusing too heavily on record-breaking temperatures.
JMS: Yeah.
DS: What is a more effective message that you’ve heard
or seen recently?
JMS: For me, it’s always about the “So what?”
Honestly, it’s not news to me anymore that we broke
a record temperature or had the third warmest year on
record, the second, or the first or whatever. That’s the
new normal, that’s not news anymore. You’ve got to
make it relevant. Okay, so, the climate is changing:
How does that impact how much they’re paying for
cereal? Or how does that impact the fact that they
might experience more turbulence on a flight? How
does it impact national security? Or the fact that their
kids are exposed to some tropical disease because of
mosquitoes that can live in their state now? You’ve got
to bring the messaging back to the here and now. So
whenever we are having all these big, strong hurricanes
that are perhaps causing them to have to evacuate the
oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, gas prices go up. Or with
Hurricane Michael last year, which devastated parts of
the Florida coast but also much of the Georgia cotton,
pecan, and peanut crop – people all across America eat
peanut butter or buy clothing that’s made with cotton,
so that impacts their bottom line.
DS: You worked for NASA for 12 years. Is NASA a
source that conservatives or climate-skeptical
Americans trust to give them the straight dope?
JMS: I don’t know … there are several other agencies
that also study climate, like NOAA for example.
DS: But maybe not as familiar to the public as NASA.
JMS: Yeah. The thing I found about NASA was people
just think we launch space shuttles and that I know
astronauts. People don’t even really understand that
NASA has an Earth science program. I think NASA is
a very respected science agency. I just think that people
don’t realize that we’re studying Earth too, but from
the massive vantage point of space.
DS: I want to ask you a couple questions about attribu-
tion. How strong do you consider the evidence to be
for a global-warming contribution to the recent
California fires?
BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS 207
JMS: First of all, let me say that I was one of the
authors of a National Academy of Sciences report on
attribution a couple years ago (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016). It was the
most comprehensive assessment of what we know
about the science of attribution. So, wildfires have
always been a little bit trickier than some other things
that are ranked higher on our attribution list, because
there are certainly some human factors that lead to
enhanced wildfire activity. Having said that, my own
personal opinion, and I’m not someone who’s studied
wildfires and climate, is that there clearly are some
connective tissues between climate change and the
frequency and intensity of wildfires, but human man-
agement and other things are in the mix, too.
DS: What about heavier rainfall and recent hurricanes?
JMS: The thing that rated the highest in our National
Academy study – of having the strongest linkages to
climate change based on the current scientific literature
– is heat waves, reduction or lack of extreme cold
events, intense rainfall or heavy rainfall rates. Those
things rank the highest. Drought was nearby.
Hurricanes kind of fell more in the middle than that,
not because we don’t understand that there’s probably
some physical link between a warming climate and
hurricanes, but we used three things to assess attribu-
tion: Can that event be reproduced in climate models?
Do we have a long data record of that event? And what
is our physical understanding? So based on those three
pillars of the stool, we rated our understanding of how
likely an event was tied to climate change. For hurri-
canes, we just don’t have a long enough record of
hurricanes, because satellite records are primarily
what we use, and our climate models don’t all repro-
duce hurricanes very well. That’s why it kind of fell to
the middle of the road. That doesn’t mean that we
don’t think climate change has an impact on hurri-
canes, it’s just that, where the state of the science is, we
couldn’t put it higher on the list.
DS: What do you wish journalists would ask you when
we’re in the middle of one of these extreme weather
events?
JMS: I wish they wouldn’t ask me about climate change
in the middle of a life-threatening event, first of all.
DS: Fair enough.
JMS: I’m more focused on warning and messaging the
event in real time, and getting people out of the way,
and messaging about the current threat of storm surge,
208 D. STOVER
that’s the thing. The other thing that I really hope and
wish that the media would do, and I think it’s getting
better, is to remove this idea of false equivalency, which
is when you write a story or have a TV program trying
to present both sides of the story equally. If three
bridge engineers said, “Drive across that bridge,
you’re okay,” but 97 bridge engineers say, “Don’t
drive across it, it’s going to collapse,” is that an equal
and balanced story?
DS: What do you think it’s going to take for the world
to avoid exceeding the two-degree guard rail?
JMS: It’s going to take global action to reduce emis-
sions back to the standards the Paris Agreement was
trying to set for us. We’re a fossil fuel-based economy
and will be for some time to come, but clearly it’s going
to take a new mix of energy. I think it’s going to take
transformational, not incremental, changes on the
national and international level. It’s not just our bur-
den to bear, particularly with China and India being
big-time emitters now too, but the good news is they’re
stepping up to the plate, and they’re still in the Paris
Agreement.
DS: Some Republicans in Congress are worried that,
because of Trump’s national emergency declaration, a
future president might declare a climate emergency. Do
you think that would be warranted?
JMS: Sure! What was the basis for declaring the emer-
gency over the border? That American lives are threa-
tened – a threat to our society and our way of life. You
could use those same exact words to describe what’s
happening with climate change. It is threatening our
food supply, our health, national security, our infra-
structure. All these things that our daily lives depend
on. Many of us, as scientists, see a lot of things that are
happening at a far more rapid pace than even we
projected, and are happening with more intensity. I
think you’re starting to see a sense of urgency about
this, because climate scientists are inherently conserva-
tive. This is one of those big misconceptions; there’s
this notion out there that we are hyping all this, or are
alarmist about it. But many of us are actually very
careful and measured in what we say, and because of
that tendency, I think we’ve actually downplayed the
level of threat that we are under with climate change.
DS: In your scholarly research, what are the questions
you are working on right now?
JMS: I have a project looking at landfalling hurricanes
and whether they can re-intensify over wet soil,
something called a “brown ocean.” Hurricanes mostly
weaken when they move over land. But if there has
been a lot of rainfall in an area, a hurricane moving
over that area may not weaken, or may even intensify.
We have a massive, funded project looking at the
brown ocean effect. I’ve got some work right now
with the US Forest Service where we’re looking at the
weather and climate impacts or influences on wildfires
in the southern Appalachian mountains. I’ve got some
work where we’re looking at water scarcity and water
collections in the Four Corners region of the western
United States, and their impacts on indigenous popula-
tions there. We’ve got some work where we’re trying to
understand and improve our ability to predict massive
flooding in an urban environment. And I’ve got some
work going on with a colleague at the Georgia Climate
Project, which is trying to approach climate solutions
for the state of Georgia in a non-partisan, non-con-
frontational way.
DS: I want to ask you about one of your fellow climate
scientists in Georgia, Judith Curry.
JMS: I’m not going to talk about her. She’s not in
Georgia anymore. She’s actually a colleague of mine, I
get along with her just fine.
DS: I know she has a reputation as a climate skeptic.
But I’m more interested in her statement when she left
her teaching position a couple of years ago; she said she
could no longer advise young people about how to
navigate the craziness in the field of climate science.
I’m curious what you think about whether there’s too
much political correctness in the world of academic
climate science, particularly since you’re still working
with young people yourself.
JMS: I can’t respond to that. That’s her opinion. But I
will say that I embrace the opportunity to share with
young scholars the science of climate and its implica-
tions for society. I’ve had no issues talking about cli-
mate science at my university.
DS: Why are people still so confused about the differ-
ence between climate and weather? Is it possible that
we’ve tried too hard to draw some sort of hard line
between the two, and now when we talk about the ways
that climate change may be affecting weather events,
that can be confusing to people?
JMS: I think you’re spot on with that. There is a
difference between weather and climate, and we have
to draw this distinction. But drawing a distinction
doesn’t mean that they’re not related. There’s a

difference between general medicine and public health,
but they’re related and they’re connected. I just think
we have to do a better job helping people understand
that things don’t operate in vacuums. The weather is
not separate from oceans, and the oceans are not sepa-
rate from the biosphere. And yeah, weather and climate
are different, but they carry signatures or signals that
can talk to each other. It’s a challenging problem and to
some degree, again, people lack literacy. For example,
people don’t think it gets cold in the desert, because
their perception of desert is that it’s always hot. But in
fact, at night in deserts it can get really cold.
DS: I find it interesting that people listen to TV
weather forecasters and generally seem to believe and
trust in their data and computer models, and their
advice about what we need to do to get ready for
what’s coming – but they have trouble with climate
models, and climate data, and climate forecasts.
JMS: That’s actually a common thing that I tweet in my
social media space. Whenever there’s a really big-time
weather event going on in my area, all my Facebook
friends come to my page asking, “What’s going on?”
You come running to me for my meteorological infor-
mation, yet you deny my expertise on climate, why?
Because the anti-science campaign that I talked about
earlier has been so successful convincing people that
it’s a political issue, but it’s not. As [Penn State meteor-
ology professor and former Bulletin Science and
Security Board member] David Titley says, “The ice
doesn’t care if you’re Republican or Democratic.”
Notes
1. In the survey of American Meteorological Society mem-
bers, two-thirds indicated that changes in the climate
over the past 50 years are mostly or entirely caused by
human activity (Maibach et al. 2016).
BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS 209
2. Gandy retired on May 31, after this interview was
conducted.
3. Fishel resigned from WRAL-TV earlier this year, citing
“personal challenges” that he said affected his “ability to
work effectively and professionally.”
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Bender, B. 2019. “The New Language of Climate Change.”
Politico, January 27. https://www.politico.com/magazine/
story/2019/01/27/climate-change-politics-224295
Maibach, E., D. Perkins, Z. Francis, T. Myers, A. Engblom, B.
Yona, and K. Seitter. 2016. A 2016 National Survey of
American Meteorological Society Member Views on
Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change
Communication. March. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.
com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3
Maibach, E., D. Perkins, K. Timm, T. Myers, B. W. Placky, S.
Sublette, A. Engblom, and K. Seitter. 2017. A 2017
National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists: Initial
Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center
for Climate Change Communication. https://www.climate
changecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/
2017WeathercasterSurveyReport.pdf
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2016. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the
Context of Climate Change. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21852.
Shepherd, M. 2018. “3 Kinds of Bias that Shape Your
Worldview.” Talk presented at TEDxUGA, March 22.
https://www.ted.com/talks/j_marshall_shepherd_3_kinds_
bias_that_shape_your_worldview
Shepherd, M. 2019. “Why Climate Change Messaging Must
Evolve Beyond Noting Record-Breaking Temperatures.”
Forbes, February 8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall
shepherd/2019/02/08/so-what-its-warmer-climate-change-
messaging-must-evolve-now/#2fcffc436437