A rapidly growing number of TV weathercasters are reporting on the local implications of climate change, although little is known about the effectiveness of such communication. To test the impact of localized climate reporting, we conducted an internet-based randomized controlled experiment in which local TV news viewers (n = 1,200) from two American cities (Chicago and Miami) watched either three localized climate reports or three standard weather reports featuring a prominent TV weathercaster from their city; each of the videos was between 1 and 2 min in duration. Participants’ understanding of climate change as real, human-caused, and locally relevant was assessed with a battery of questions after watching the set of three videos. Compared to participants who watched weather reports, participants who watched climate reports became significantly more likely to 1) understand that climate change is happening, is human-caused, and is causing harm in their community; 2) feel that climate change is personally relevant and express greater concern about it; and 3) feel that they understand how climate change works and express greater interest in learning more about it. In short, our findings demonstrate that watching even a brief amount of localized climate reporting (less than 6 min) delivered by TV weathercasters helps viewers develop a more accurate understanding of global climate change as a locally and personally relevant problem, and offer strong support for this promising approach to promoting enhanced public understanding of climate change through public media.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released in 2018, offers incontrovertible evidence that climate change is already affecting individuals, communities, and businesses across the United States, and threatens to further undermine well-being, safety, and access to basic resources as it progresses (USGCRP 2018). Yet, the public response to climate change has, thus far, been tepid. Most Americans perceive the threat as distant—in time, space, and species—and not personally relevant, and only a minority see climate change as a high-priority concern (Ballew et al. 2019). Enhancing public engagement in the issue is imperative for efforts to build resilience at the individual and societal levels and to limit the progression of climate change.

Public communication can be an effective tool for informing and enhancing public engagement in individual and collective responses to threats to health and well-being. The most successful public communication initiatives tend to feature simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted sources (Maibach 2019). Arguably, the public education initiatives on climate change that have most faithfully applied this formula have been industry-funded disinformation campaigns (Oreskes and Conway 2010; Dunlap and McCright 2011). Conversely, there have been relatively few organized, sustained public communication efforts by government, industry, or civil society to help Americans better understand and connect with the reality and risks of climate change.

Climate Matters—initiated as a pilot test in 2010–11 by a university (George Mason), a civil society organization (Climate Central), and a local TV station (WLTX, Columbia, South Carolina), and scaled up thereafter in partnership with a professional society (the American Meteorological Society) and two government agencies (NOAA and NASA)—is one example of a sustained, science-based, public communication initiative on climate change (Placky et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2014). Climate Matters was developed as a local climate reporting resource program with the aim of enlisting and enabling TV weathercasters as local, trusted, science-based, nonpolitical climate educators (Maibach et al. 2016). Weathercasters are trusted as a source of information about global warming (Maibach et al. 2016), and they have considerable access to the public that cuts across political, geographical, and socioeconomic divides (Demuth et al. 2011; Lazo et al. 2009). Moreover, they are interested in delivering stories that are not only compelling and relevant, but will contribute to the safety and well-being of their viewers (Schweizer et al. 2014). The American Meteorological Society encourages and enables weathercasters to engage in the role of “station scientist” (AMS 2019). Weathercasters have ample opportunity to provide locally relevant information about climate change that directly addresses the risks it poses to the health, economic security, and safety of individuals and their families, and communities. However, a 2010 nationwide survey of weathercasters found that while many were interested in reporting local climate stories, few were actually doing so, largely due to barriers such as lack of time to research local data and turn it into broadcast quality graphics (Maibach et al. 2016). The Climate Matters program was designed to address these barriers by providing weekly, TV-ready information about local impacts of climate change using high-quality, clear, and engaging graphics and locally relevant and timely information.

Climate Matters has been well received by TV weathercasters. There are currently more than 770 weathercasters across 184 media markets participating in Climate Matters, and on-air reporting about climate change has increased dramatically—approximately 3,200% between 2012 and 2018. Empirical studies of the program’s impacts have been limited, however. A quasi-experimental evaluation of the pilot test in Columbia, South Carolina—in which 13 approximately 2-min stories were aired over the course of one year—found that viewers of the test station developed a more science-based understanding of climate change (Zhao et al. 2014).

In the current study, we set out to more rigorously test the efficacy of climate communication by local TV weathercasters using Climate Matters materials—employing a randomized, controlled experimental design. Two local TV weathercasters who participate in the Climate Matters program created three videos each in which they discuss climate change in the context of their local weather. We then exposed audience members in their media market to these videos, or to their regular weather coverage, and assessed the impact of this exposure on their views about climate change. We used two distinct media markets—Chicago and Miami—to explore differences and increase generalizability.

A key goal of the Climate Matters program is to reach diverse audiences, demographically and ideologically. Given the wide disparity in the acceptance of and engagement with climate change across the political spectrum, it is particularly important to connect with conservatives around this issue. However, conservative audiences tend to be exposed to messages disparaging scientific evidence about climate change from political and social authorities and the media (Feldman et al. 2011), and it is unclear to what extent they may be receptive to communication of information consistent with climate science by weathercasters (Feygina et al. 2010). Moreover, there is a concern about psychological reactivity or backlash, whereby skeptical individuals may react to information about climate change by rejecting it as a means to affirm their political identities (Fielding and Hornsey 2016; Kahan et al. 2011). Research with weathercasters has shown relatively limited negative response to climate change coverage among audiences (Perkins et al. 2018; Maibach et al. 2017); however, the question of whether backlash occurs among conservative viewers has not been directly addressed.