You may recall NBC’s Today show sending out their correspondents to all ends of the earth to highlight “climate change”.
‘Today’ host Matt Lauer reported from Jakobshavn Glacier in the Arctic last year.
Ann Curry headed to Antarctica for ‘Today Heads to the Ends of the Earth’
Well, they are at it again. From the New York Daily News:
“Today Goes to the Ends of the Earth,” kicking off on Nov. 17, will have anchors Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, Al Roker and Ann Curry headed to four different locations across the globe.
Each anchor’s location will not be revealed until the first day of the series, though Today show spokesman Jim Bell promises that anywhere is possible.
From my insider TV sources the TYSPY.com newsletter they tell me Ann Curry will be going to Mount Kilimanjaro:
Ann Curry, who spent much of Election Night traversing NBC’s “virtual rotunda,” will next climb Mount Kilimanjaro for a “Today” show sweeps stunt.
It’s an eight-day hike to the 19,340-foot summit, and according to NBC News, she’ll be there to report on the changing climate of Africa’s highest peak.
Place your bets now on if there will be mentions of these key words which actually are relevant to the true Kiliminjaro story: evapotranspiration, deforestation, sublimation.
Having done a number of TV weather live shots in remote places myself, including from atop the Sutter Buttes in the Sacramento Valley and from the fire tower at Sawmill Peak, I can tell you that preparation and backup equipment is everything. They may not actually be able to pull off the Kili stunt for technical reasons.
Alas, it will be spring there, so there will be plenty of “melting” to film, as there is every spring.
The previous President of the Maldives was also chasing money. Then Morner’s group went and measured. The sea level of the Maldives dropped 20-30 cm several decades ago. http://www.dsm.unile.it:8002/AbstractBook/Morner175_176.pdf
the bigger question is why the hell are you watching the Today Show?
get a job.
Bill P (11:37:26) :
I like her hat. I wonder what kind of animal that is.
Faux fur. Made from petroleum products!
Douglas, RE: “…I have little in the way of expectations…”
Nor I. I don’t want to malign daytime talk shows, but it appears that Today Show hosts are responsible for a fairly banal series of rituals that include: drinking coffee, making polite chatter, interviewing movie stars, and (if you want to be the hostess with the mostess), saving the planet.
Here she peddles a bike hooked up to a blender to, I guess, prevent some CO2 pollution.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12830
I’m not a follower of this show’s (or CBS’s) official positions on global warming, but I can guess what some of those positions are.
That hat is actually a live mongoose, that is attracted to the intense rodent characteristics of a network smooze reporter.
WTFAmerica:
If you close your eyes, you can’t see the elephant in the room.
Which elephant do you mean – Al Gore?
BTW, no one here is in favor of being wasteful. Of course conservation and energy efficiency is important. Consumption-driven? What nonsense. AGW propaganda has obviously addled your brain. Try some science for a change.
hello
WTFAmerica:
So you can nit-pick about little stuff, and therefore prove that global warming does not exist, and go back to your wasteful, consumtion-driven lives as if nothing is wrong. If you close your eyes, you can’t see the elephant in the room.
“The sun’ll come out tomorrow. Bet your bottom dollar there’ll be sun.”
…and it’ll vastly out-warm any/all CO2 emissions – anthropogenic or not.
Daniel, Can you see Kili from where you are?
When we flew into Arusha from Kenya, and on occasion during our climb above a certain level (I’d guess 10,000′), I recall seeing a solitary disk of clouds around the peak. This was in July.
Could you make any observations about the mountain’s cloud cover from one season to the next?
Phil’s Dad (07:50:14) :
Worth keeping an eye out for all those media reports with the head line “Arctic Ice Area Exceeds 30 Year Average”
Bet you won’t. That would be because the ‘pundits’ are not using the ’30 year average’, they use the ‘1979-2000’ average, for reasons I have yet to understand (except that the ‘real’ 30 year average would force them to use 1977-2007 and that would most likely show a lower average ice extent than 1979-2000.
“If you close your eyes, you can’t see the elephant in the room.”
Am I the only one who notices that people who make comments like this never back them up with any kind of argument or factual assertion?
@ur momisugly Daniel
Ultimately the Sun causes both Global Warming and Global Cooling. CO2 does not produce energy, it merely absorbs and radiates energy ultimately provided by the Sun, just like water vapor, land, water, etc..
Fur hat? I think she is just having a bad hair day.
“Worth keeping an eye out for all those media reports with the head line “Arctic Ice Area Exceeds 30 Year Average”
Bet you won’t.”
Quite so. The MSM are still milking the ‘planet in peril’ story for all it’s worth. They’ll only drop it when it’s become completely untenable, and then they’ll get the max mileage out of the ‘planet not in peril, after all’ story – the main media value of which will depend on how long they can keep the ‘in peril’ story going.
Did you hear they found a new ring around Uranus?
Dill Weed
Climate buffoons.
How much CO2 have they emitted conducting these charades?
There’s some real good reading at RC right now. Gavin ‘s taking a beating.
Anthony – you may want to have a look.
Class act here.
http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=634845&poll_id=&news_id=&page=
Here is something that they should put on T.V.
If the earth’s atmosphere were a box 100 feet by 100 feet that stood 100 feet tall:
The Nitrogen would occupy a box 92 feet by 92 feet by 92 feet tall.
The Oxygen would occupy a box 59 feet by 59 feet by 59 feet tall.
The Argon would occupy a box 21 feet by 21 feet by 21 feet tall
The CO2 would occupy a box 7 feet by 7 feet by 7 feet tall
The amount of CO2 increase annually is a box 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot tall.
The CO2 is a small minority gas that is increasing very slowly. It will take another 615 years at the current rate of change to reach 1000ppm, a level that is not toxic and is actually beneficial for increasing plant growth. 1000ppm is the level that commercial greenhouses try to maintain for rapid plant growth. At 1000 PPM the size of the CO2 box will be 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet.
There is no guarantee that the current rate of CO2 increase will continue unabated. The natural feedback mechanisms of the earth (plants and the ocean) will at some point begin to slow the rate of CO2 rise, just as it has in the past as evidenced by the historical record.
Gavin’s taking names and adjusting attitudes at RC!!!
Whales lost in Supreme Court.
Stock Market down 411 points.
They found a new ring around Uranus today.
Dill Weed
OT, I was looking at the REALCLIMATE web-site. They were talking about how the october temp data was messed up and skeptics had a field day. In the article they meantioned that Argos temp data was corrected and now fits the models better. Last I heard, Argos showed no ocean warming. I never heard about a correction. What’s going on with that?
Are CO2 levels not down since we are now using less oil now? Ah ha, that is why the earth is now cooling.
Darn, look, more CO2 coming:
An estimated 85.4 trillion cubic feet of “undiscovered, technically recoverable gas” is frozen in the state’s North Slope region, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study released by the Interior Department. The deposits could heat more than 100 million homes for a decade, the study says.
No problem, drilling will get banned on this asap.
Oh, I missed this part…
However, the study warned that further research is needed to determine the long-term impacts of the natural gas hydrates — essentially methane gas trapped in ice.
It’s already going to be banned….LOL
To Craig,
There is an explanation on Jennifer Marohasy’s site about correcting the Argos data:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
It’s not real easy to follow the logic other than they are trying to balance the energy budget. Perhaps it can be put in laymen’s term by someone who might also be able to tell if this visit to the data massage parlor is to work out a kink or just do something kinky.
Sean (16:20:33) This controversy about Argos is connected I think with the Jason sea level information which was showing a plateauing and even a possible drop until the data publication was suspended for unspecified technical reasons. The combination of a sea level rise halt and slight cooling for several years from the Argos buoys suggested that there was no ‘extra heat’ stored in the oceans, which would savage some of the hopes and dreams of the CO2=AGW true believers.
I guess we’ll just have to see how ocean temperatures and sea levels progress from here. Too bad the models are given precedence and when they don’t fit with the ongoing delivery of data, then the data is questioned and massaged.
Diogenes, wherefore art thou?
=====================================