ZDF meteorologist Özden Terli on his way of predicting the weather
Heat, heavy rain or the current storm – it’s not uncommon for new records to be set in the daily weather report, which has long been much more than a forecast. Especially when Özden Terli is on duty at ZDF. The 51-year-old meteorologist often addresses the connection between weather and climate. Born in Cologne, he is also active on Twitter, where Terli has many fans, but has sometimes been called a “charlatan” or “propagandist”.
Mr. Terli, you used to look at the weather forecast to know whether you needed an umbrella the next day or whether you could go out in a T-shirt. Today there is often a lesson about climate change…
Because we are living in a climate crisis – with weather phenomena that were predicted by scientists 30 years or even longer ago: that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase, that temperatures will rise, that there will be more and more extreme weather events . And that’s exactly what’s happening. And because meteorology is the physics of the atmosphere, climate change cannot be separated from the weather. So, every once in a while, there’s – as you say – a lesson about that, because viewers should know why things are the way they are.
Two storms in a row are currently racing across Germany. Are they also related to climate change – or are they normal weather events?
Of course, one cannot say that the hurricane Zeynep was caused by the climate crisis. But the temperature in the region north of the Azores is higher than normal – and that in turn affects the strength of the storms. Basically, the warmer the air, the more moisture it can absorb. If the water is also warmer, this also has an effect on the lows. These ingredients generally make storms worse.
If the topic of climate change plays such a big role today, was it then neglected too much in the weather reports in the past?
I can’t say anything about the situation in Germany. In the USA, the oil industry torpedoed climate science for a long time – that has been scientifically processed. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway have unraveled in a book how this site acted against facts. Because recognizing these facts would have meant that something had to be changed.
When there is talk of meeting climate targets, politicians and the media ask how the poor are supposed to pay for the ever-rising energy prices.
Of course, the poor need compensation. But basically you have to ask the question: What is the alternative? Do we want to drive the world against the wall because politicians have not taken the necessary steps in recent years? Or do we want to change things in a way that benefits everyone? In the sense that people in the future, that coming generations will also have a good life. The reference to the additional costs that burden poor people in particular often occurs when it comes to climate protection. Instead of emphasizing the climate opportunities, people are also made afraid.
Is the question not valid?
Of course she is entitled. But I also want to give you another answer to this: not only the poorer ones, we all have to pay for it if nothing changes, and very expensive indeed, also in a figurative sense. When sea levels rise, when temperatures rise, people will die, and many others will flee and stand at the gates of Europe, in far greater numbers than before. These scenarios are not science fiction, they will become real if we just continue on a business-as-usual course. Look at the Ahr valley, how many people died there, the catastrophe was not just a weather event, as some people have portrayed it. This is what attribution researchers have shown.
You are also attacked for your excursions into climate policy. How do you deal with that?
If you’re constantly concerned with the changes in the atmosphere and in the cryosphere of the earth – that’s everything to do with ice, with melting glaciers in Antarctica for example – then you have to have an opinion on it. I therefore find my digressions into climate policy appropriate. And if I’m attacked for stating the facts, that’s not my problem, it’s the problem of those who attack me.
Your director, Thomas Bellut, doesn’t think much of making politics about the climate. He also rejected a daily program “Klima vor Acht” (Climate Before Eight). Do you feel you have enough support in your own home?
I’m closely connected to the “heute journal” – and if there is more to say, for example additional information about a contribution in the show, then my colleagues point it out. The short excursions into the climate cannot be separated from the weather, because catastrophes and extreme weather events have an effect on it. The daily weather report is the right time slot to react quickly. “Climate before eight” could only be a supplementary format with more time, but not a substitute for the work of a meteorologist.
What is your own personal prognosis? Can climate collapse still be prevented?
The point is: the people who say: “We can’t do it anymore” really just want to continue as before. Most scientists are convinced that we have the technical possibilities to noticeably reduce CO2 emissions, but this has not been politically wanted up to now. I suspect it will be difficult to maintain the 1.5 degree mark – that takes a lot more commitment. Nevertheless, we should do everything we can to flatten the curve. Every tenth less is better – actually it shouldn’t get any warmer. Unfortunately, we are currently on a course of three degrees by the end of the century because we are not changing anything at the moment.
Interview: Rudolf Ogiermann.
