UPDATE: 11/25 I now have word from a reputable source close to TWC that Cullen was indeed part of the layoff. – Anthony
I’ve been following this story since yesterday, but the details kept being somewhat nebulous. Since WaPo has it, I’ve decided it is safe to consider reasonably accurate now. It looks like TWC has ditched their entire environmental unit, and possibly also host Heidi Cullen, who once said:
“If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.” “Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.” “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
Needless to say, I and many other current and former TV meteorologists took exception to the issue. I posted on it almost two years ago here.
TWC’s Heidi Cullen
From the Washington Post: (h/t to Jason Samenow)
NBC Fires Weather Channel Environmental Unit
Some on-camera meteorologists also let go
*A very cold evening: PM forecast update*
NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s “Green Week”, as well as several on-camera meteorologists. The layoffs totaled about 10 percent of the workforce, and are the first major changes made since NBC completed its purchase of the venerable weather network in September.
Keep reading for more on The Weather Channel cuts…
The layoffs affected about 80 people, but left the long-term leadership of the network unclear, according to a source who requested anonymity due to the continuing uncertainty at the station.
Among the meteorologists who was let go was Dave Schwartz, a Weather Channel veteran and a viewer staple due to his lively on camera presentations. USA Today reported that meteorologists Cheryl Lemke and Eboni Deon were also let go.
The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC’s “Green is Universal” week, during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms. Forecast Earth normally aired on weekends, but its presumed last episode was shown on a weekday due to the environmentally-oriented week.
Forecast Earth was hosted by former CNN anchor Natalie Allen, with contributions from climate expert Heidi Cullen. It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject. Cullen’s future role at the network is not known.
By Andrew Freedman | November 21, 2008; 5:00 PM ET
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re. http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html
Looks like the freezing line runs right through my back yard!
If November averages below normal for northern NJ, which seems likely, it will be the third month of the last four which has been below normal.
I make no global or long-term claims for that factoid; I’m just keeping track.
Now, if the forecast cold for December pans out, we might, in the extreme case, make a run at the all-time coldest twelfth month for northern NJ set in 1989.
Hi,
For those of you clinging to your denial and dogma. Here’s your facts & science.
Will
ps – hopefully the html works on this site & this comes out ok. If not sorry & i’ll re-post w/o code.
NOAA: Second warmest October on record
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reports:
Given that this report is just out, I’m assuming they have sorted out the data entry issues that briefly caused problems for NASA (see here and here). Also worth noting from the NCDC report:
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the October 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was the third least October sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006. Average ice extent during October 2008 was 8.4 million square kilometers, which is 9.5 percent below the 1979-2000 average. Sea ice extent for October has decreased at a rate of 5.4 percent per decade, since satellite records began in 1979.
El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions remained in a neutral phase during October.
Since interest in the monthly temperature reports is so keen these days, let me repeat the key points from my an earlier post on the monthly data. While the monthly data doesn’t tell us much about the climate, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has a couple of interesting forecasts for the next decade:
The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade — similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot — and then Very Hot“).
That is why they call it global warming.
Hi,
I guess posts here don’t accept html as my last commnt didn’t appear. So apologies if this is a re-post. Anyways, for those still clinging bitterly yo your dogma, here’s your facts and science.
Will
NOAA: Second warmest October on record
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center reports:
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for October and ninth warmest on record for the January-October year-to-date period.
Given that this report is just out, I’m assuming they have sorted out the data entry issues that briefly caused problems for NASA (see here and here). Also worth noting from the NCDC report:
* According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the October 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was the third least October sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006. Average ice extent during October 2008 was 8.4 million square kilometers, which is 9.5 percent below the 1979-2000 average. Sea ice extent for October has decreased at a rate of 5.4 percent per decade, since satellite records began in 1979.
* El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions remained in a neutral phase during October.
Since interest in the monthly temperature reports is so keen these days, let me repeat the key points from my an earlier post on the monthly data. While the monthly data doesn’t tell us much about the climate, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has a couple of interesting forecasts for the next decade:
* The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
* The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
* The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade — similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot — and then Very Hot“).
That is why they call it global warming.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/19/noaa-second-warmest-october-on-record/#more-4260
Dear Mr Small
We are clinging to denial and dogma?
Those who quote Hadley, NOAA, NCDC and NASA as their sources might want to do a little investigation behind the scenes to see how they ‘derive’ their numbers and predictions. These organisations are the kings of dogma.
Hi Mr. Crafter ,
Thanks for followup. Folks had asked me to supply specific facts to back up my assertions which I have done.
So if you have a problem with the scientific data as presented, than by all means please provide specifics that refute the above data.
Just remember that IPCC findings represent the validation of 1,000’s of scientists and has been peer reviewed. Your specific refuting data should also have similar sources and peer review.
Up for the challenge?
Will
LOL,
Will Small you are not up to date:
“NOAA: Second warmest October on record”
Try this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/12/corrected-nasa-gistemp-data-has-been-posted/
GISS had used the previous months data.
I would call it global goof.
Mr. Small proved he knows very little about his subject. Know one with knowledge would write “peer-reviewed scientific literature has a couple of interesting forecasts for the next decade” and expect anyone to be impressed.
First, “peer-reviewed”? I think I’d rather have some science that someone had actually bothered to check.
Second, scientific “forecasts for the next decade”? Would these “scientific forecasts” be of a quality equal to Dr. Hansen’s erroneous forecasts?
Peer-reviewed scientific forecasts — What a joke!
Make that “no” one. Lol!
Hello Will Small,
How are you going to react when all your agruments are blown to bits?
Don’t make me laugh too much about peer review!
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/05/grapes-of-math-global-warming-fraud.html
DaveE.
Hi Stan,
I never said I was a scientist. Just a concerned citizen who cares about the planet. Yes, I’m a liberal tree hugger, too.
The Oct. data shows:
– 6 th warmest for ocean temps
– warmest for land records
– 2nd warmest for land + ocean
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/global.html#current-month
Sorry, those are the facts from the U.S. Gov’t.
Bring it on,
Will
Will Small
“Just remember that IPCC findings represent the validation of 1,000’s of scientists and has been peer reviewed”
Just how does one validate a scientist? Your grammar seems to be as shaky as your science.
Also having both done some peer-reviewing myself, and having published a number of peer-reviewed papers, I am probably less inclined to be impressed by the ritual incantation of the phrase “peer review” than you are.
Will,
What do you suppose the HadCRUT3 data for the entire year will show?
And how’s Hansen’s Scenario B doing these days?
Wiil Small
Here’s what an independent agency says about climate forecasting computer models.
Ncpa study # 308
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/
The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
• Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
• Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
• An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38.
As a result of these violations of forecasting principles, the forecasts in the IPCC report are invalid.
I suggest you read the rest of the study
I also suggest you read about CO2 climate control theory at RealClimate.com and at Junk Science. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
And while you are at it check out Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/
You know you guys, I don’t really see anyone refuting the scientific facts here.
I see folks griping about my grammar, spelling and how I’m not a scientist and other red herrings.
As for HadCRUT3 data? It’ll show increase in temperatures for 2008.
The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 – those are also the 8 warmest years in the NASA record, in a different order, starting with 2005, then 2007 tied with 1998). Where the heck is the cooling trend?
See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
“Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. ”
Same for Hansen’s Scenario B.
As usual, if you can’t win on facts, destroy the credibility of the poster.
It’s this conservative, rigid mindset that doesn’t allow you to see new ways of thinking.
Try and open your mind and be progressive.
Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. You guys probably work for Exxxon, drive Hummers and have a vested interest in the status quo.
Will Small said:
Sorry, those are the
factsadjusted numbers from the U.S. Gov’t.Fixed.
Will Small (17:59:49) :
I’m perfectly happy to look at the data.
Maybe you ought to do the same.
Here, take a good hard look at this table.
Increase compared to what?
Same what?
Will Small
I am pleased that a fellow tree hugger has posted on this column! Hear, hear!, and keep up the good work!
I agree with you, that our fellow bloggers should not attack you based on your grammar skills or lack of science education, but instead with facts. I also don’t write so good, and make plenty of mistakes anyhow.
What the skeptics here are trying to do is direct you to places where you can learn about the science behind the AGW and greenhouse effect. Please don’t take their harsh language personally; it comes from the exasperated feeling you get when you try to explain something logical to a person and they refuse to consider it based on their prior impressions. In other words, their patience is wearing a bit thin.
I am very concerned with the environment and how we can best protect it, just like you. It is very important to get a good basic understanding of the history of our climate and a few general principles about global warming and cooling. Where to go to get this information? Try sources that are not directly involved with government, or are not dependent on grant money to show a certain position. “Frozen Earth” by Doug McDougall is a history of how geologists found out about the ice ages. It explains a lot, and is critical for anyone interested in global warming. Also, it is simple enough that even I could understand it! Junkscience.com is a good venue for finding out alternative theories and scientific logic that is counter to the positions popularized by Al Gore. If you read enough of the threads on this website you will also discover a dearth of clever people trying to solve some of the problems from a variety of angles.
Good luck with your enlightenment! I am looking forward to hearing more from you on this topic.
As soon as a “scientist” (Dr. Heidi Cullen-is she a real Dr.?) begins her editorial on AGW, I stopped watching TWC –
I would like to see all weather (people) be held liable for any and all pontificating from such positions of power.
I am a licensed professional and as such, I am liable for anything I say or do.
Once a “meteorologist” states AGW as FACT he is no longer a scientist and should be completely stripped of all credentials –
Or we could just wait for the Ice Age – or whatever actually happens while all the scientists are being distracted from actual science by AGW movement.
Will Small (17:59:49) :
As for HadCRUT3 data? It’ll show increase in temperatures for 2008.
Compared to what? Since 2007? See http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2007/trend
The 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 – those are also the 8 warmest years in the NASA record, in a different order, starting with 2005, then 2007 tied with 1998). Where the heck is the cooling trend?
It’s already started. Joe D’Aleo found that global temperatures track major circulation patterns than CO2, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/ . The Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped negative a couple years ago. When it flipped positive in the late 1970s that ushered in 30 years of warming. We expect that the negative PDO will bring 30 years of cooling. Not quite as strong – the last couple of PDO cycles show a gradual increase, presumably part of the recovery from the Little Ice Age.
See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
“Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. ”
Eight years of warming, two years of cooling, come back in another six years. Umm, the sense I get here is that no one believes the Met’s forecasts. That myths site looks awfully close minded. At least here you a can argue your case.
Try and open your mind and be progressive.
I think we are – the “CO2 is the problem” dogma is blindly accepted by thousands of people like you. Joe’s correlations are really interesting, CO2 over geologic scale time is really interesting, the quality of the ground based data is astonishingly scary. Are you aware that Anthony started surfacestations.org as a grass roots project to document siting quality of the US climate network? One spin-off is to distrust ground based observations like GISS and HadCrut in favor of satellite based data like UAH. If you’d like to start a site audit in the UK let Anthony know.
Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. You guys probably work for Exxxon, drive Hummers and have a vested interest in the status quo.
No, I work for a software company and drive a 1999 Saturn SL2 with 227,000 miles on it. Yeah, too long commute, but it gets over 30 mpg, even with 10% Ethanol gas. I did buy it as a low cost, high mileage freeway car. It’s held up better than its predecessor, a Saab 900. See http://wermenh.com/saturn.html for what happened to my first Saturn.
Hi again,
Thanks for the supportive comments from Old Coach.
I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t go head to head with most of you on every piece of data.
I stumbled into here because of TWC canceling FE. I mean a single program broadcast once a week in a poor timeslot on something that many, many scientists and non-scientist believe is happening with GW?
I don’t think many of us who believe we’ve passed a catastrophic tipping point are being too paranoid when a giant corporation like GE takes it’s first action on this front.
Now we’re at the stage that GW denial no longer works so now Big Media just suppresses the info and hopes it goes away.
If anyone can prove that TWC acted purely on ratings issues, I’d love to see it. Because from what I understand, Cullen had very high favorability ratings and solid credentials.
Reply: Will, you’re new around here, so you may not know it, but we don’t use the word “deniers,” or any of its permutations. Please use “skeptic,” meaning one who questions. ~ dbstealey, moderator
Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. You guys probably work for Exxxon, drive Hummers and have a vested interest in the status quo.
Mr Small
With this statement you disqualified anything that you might have said elsewhere .
This statement is characteristic of a crackpot , antiscientific , conspiration theory which is precisely the reason why no sane person will listen to whatever you might want to say .
I can say with on certainty bordering probability that nobody here is working for Exxon .
However as people generally work for somebody (who are you working for ?) , discriminating people by the company they are working for is typical of a fascist mindset that is unacceptable in most civilised countries .
As for the Hummer , I am also convinced that nobody here is driving a Hummer because it is a bit too expensive even if it is a fine and comfortable car .
However buying and driving a [insert your favorite care model] is as legal as buying a Hamburger or using air conditionning .
If you consider that YOU have the right to prescribe and enforce the way Chinese or Europeans must live and what cars they should drive , then you are deluded because only an infinitesimal minority of mankind dreams of an Orwellian society .
But as I am a scientist back to science .
By your own words you are not a scientist .
Bad luck because , unfortunately for you , atmospheric physics can’t be understood and discussed without a fair deal of physics and mathematics .
From my experience with talking with non scientists about physics , they tend to misunderstand and to misinterpret most of the basic facts .
It is not surprising but it takes many years and hard work to catch up for those who wish to achieve a kind of understanding .
If you want to do so , below is a list of results that have to be understood .
– The IPCC prediction based on a non stationnary stochastic model for the 21st century is a GMT central tendency of 0,2 °C / decade .
Consideration of data between 2000 and 2008 with an AR(1) model FALSIFIES this prediction with a 95 % confidence .
– Peer reviewed papers (like f.ex Dr Koutsoyiannis) prove that the hypothesis of non stationnarity is not relevant for climatic processes . The scaling hypothesis is a better alternative to interpret the data .
– Radiative transfer models that are used for GCMs , treat radiation uncoupled from convection . This is obviously wrong for systems where convection matters , the Earth being an example . There doesn’t exist any model coupling both and many scientists consider that this problem will not be solved in any foreseeable future .
– the short term atmospheric dynamics are a chaotic process and this has been known for almost 50 years . There doesn’t exist any derivation proving that time averages of dynamic parameters obey stochastical laws . Indeed in all deterministic and chaotic systems they don’t . That’s btw why there can’t be a theoretical derivation of the climate sensibility and numerical models must be used . Peer reviewed papers (Ruelle , Takens etc) prove that in many cases fluid flows present a chaotic attractor . This is a HUGE unsolved problem for the climate predictability .
– the single most important parameter for the albedo at scales where Earth’s orbital variations can be neglected (up to some thousands of years) is the cloudiness . So it is the cloudiness and the thermal inertia of the oceans that are the primary driver of the system’s evolution at intermediate time scales . The climate models are known for not being able to model cloudiness because the physical processes are simply unknown to this date (see on this theme peer reviewed papers by Prof Lindzen) .
On top the clouds are spatial chaotic structures what doesn’t make the problem easier .
Therefore the models get the dynamics of albedo hopelessly wrong as well as regional humidity&temperature predictions (see peer reviewed papers by R.Pielke) .
So now I’d suggest you to stop writing on blogs and dedicate the next few years to some physics to understand what is said above and why it is important .
Shorter Tom Vonk: The models are inadequate for what they claim to do. Believe them at your peril.
=====================================
Will Small (23:51:13) :
Now you say:
<Blockquote?I’ll be the first to admit that I can’t go head to head with most of you on every piece of data.”
Whatever happened to “Up for the challenge?” and “Bring it on”?