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.
MattN:
It has already been long established that doubling of CO2 just by itself, in a laboratory experiment, resuslts in .6C. That is without any feedbacks.
I’d be very interested in seeing that experiment, can you give a citation?
Moptop, you are brutal.
“what piece of evidence was it that convinced you that AGW was real and likely to “create totoal disaster?”
I don’t think you can name one. I think you accept it on the authority of the UN and politicians you trust, and I think you accept it because of previous beliefs that capitalism is a bad thing and previous beliefs that corporations are evil. Not a singe “reason” I listed here could be considered evidence or the result of the excercise of logic.”
So glaciers are melting right? And you say, they’ve been melting for 1,000’s of years. And I say, but now they’re melting really fast. And you say, based on what? I show you 2 pictures of Athabasca Glacier from 1960 & 2008 and I say see, this one is smaller. And you say, so what. And I say, but it melted at faster rate in 40 years than in the previous 4,000 years and that seems to indicate that things are heating up fast. And you say, so what. Well, if it keeps going like this, Wall St will be under water. And you say, last i checked my 401K, it already is under water. 😉
Please tell me why glaciers are melting so fast, where the water goes, and how it impacts sea level?
Based on my understanding from Al Gore and company, glaciers melting is a bad thing and harbinger of worse to come. canary and a coalmine sort of thing. Hey, I realize that’s simplistic but that should be pretty easy for you to eviscerate.
Oh, and you had a few typos in your comments so don’t get down on me for a lack of ivory tower elite perfection.
“I am curious about one more thing from you doomsday culters. Do you know what the definition of “rhetoric” is? Rhetoric is a form of speech than sounds like logic, but isn’t. You can’t work out the behavior of physical systems accurately using rhetoric.”
Why are you so patronizing, Moptop? And what kind of nickname is that anyway?
Moptop (10:17:47) :
“The problem with arguing with somebody like Will Small is that he does not want to engage in the actual argument. I don’t know if he is just too stupid, or does not have the habits of mind that allow for critical thinking. He accepts what he is told by people he trusts. Then, for some reason I would love to know, after admitting that he knows little about the science, thinks he has the credibility to change a single mind.”
Sure, let’s engage. Like I’ve said a few times that I was appalled by folks reaction here to the sacking of Dr. Cullen. That’s where myself and lots of morons like me try and get info from besides journals, the internets, & TeeVee.
And I stated a few times my mission is not to change your mind. It’s to understand your mindset.
And thanks for the questions on what you would like to see to convince you that GW is real. Especially MattN & evanjones.
I plan to take these back to my camp and see what they might have in response.
And then maybe I’ll bring them back over here to see how they play. But you guys are pretty rough with visitors. So maybe you can direct me to a skeptic place that engages more at my speed. Although, from what I’ve seen, they can be even nastier. talk about rhetoric. whew.
Also, I know folks can’t take me seriously b/c of my lack of credentials. But I see some comments above that forecast economic doom if we clean up the Earth (cap & trade, etc.). Show me the data to support that theory. Because if the earth is destroyed, there is no greater economic calamity.
There are alternate theories that this will have a net positive economic impact as green jobs are created.
Just one example, Toyota makes hybrids which are very successful and Detroit has been unable to bring competition to the market on alternative vehicles. There are other areas where U.S. lags on research in wind, solar, geothermal, etc because of our fossil fuel mindset.
American automaker jobs are getting ready to dwindle real fast along with that all of its support industry. I’m sure you’re familiar with that situation. And don’t blame the unions for Detroit’s demise.
The point being lots of jobs are being lost because of the lack of vision in changing the way we do business.
Phil, I’m sure you know that Svante Arrhenius derived that number a century ago. It is well understood and accepted.
Will, in addition to the positive feedback proof, you are going to need to explain the 800-year CO2/Temperature lag better than the “just because it didn’t start the warming does not mean that it doesn’t contribute to it later” explaination I’ve read. In addition, you need to explain if CO2 induced warming shows up in the polar regions first, why is Antarctica refusing to warm up?
MattN (12:22:24) :
Phil, I’m sure you know that Svante Arrhenius derived that number a century ago. It is well understood and accepted.
You referred to ‘laboratory experiments’ not a derivation performed with a very imperfect knowledge of the spectroscopy of CO2 a century ago. I take it that your experiment doesn’t exist?
Phil, my appologies. I cannot seem to find the reference I was remembering. I either mis-remembered, or simply read a typo that has since been changed. My bad. Sorry.
In any event, the jist of my question remains the same. How does the IPCC get its value for doubling CO2 when the water vapor feedback is proving (with actual scientific observations from AQUA) to be negative?
A timely post over at Icecap raises another point: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
The “preindustial” level of CO2 captures 95% of the availible wavelength energy. There was never mre than only 5% rediational energy at that wavelength left to capture with additional CO2. Adding CO2 does… virtually nothing.
“And don’t blame the unions for Detroit’s demise. ”
Name me another industry that pays a high school graduate $85,000 to drive a forklift….
MattN (14:54:54) :
In any event, the jist of my question remains the same. How does the IPCC get its value for doubling CO2 when the water vapor feedback is proving (with actual scientific observations from AQUA) to be negative?
Care to explain how that negative feedback works?
A timely post over at Icecap raises another point: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf
The “preindustial” level of CO2 captures 95% of the availible wavelength energy. There was never mre than only 5% rediational energy at that wavelength left to capture with additional CO2. Adding CO2 does… virtually nothing.
A load of nonsense written by someone who really doesn’t understand the subject I’m afraid, the comparison of the Earth and Mars spectra makes no sense, also the two graphs aren’t even in the same units.
I strongly suspect water vapor feedback to be variable.
==================================
Will Small (12:11:35)
“if we clean up the Earth (cap & trade, etc.). ”
What makes you think CO2 cap & trade will clean up the earth?
Phil (23:20:13)
“Care to explain how that negative feedback works?”
Through the lapse rate. The lapse rate is not constant and is a function of absolute humidity. As humidity rises the lapse rate reduces. It needs only small changes in lapse rate to completely negate any doubling of CO2. The assumption of constant lapse rate is a fatal flaw in modelling. It is the reason we can still inhabit the tropics (despite the hypothesised spiralling warming via water vapour increases).
Phil,
According to the book “Computer Processing of Remotely Sensed Images”
http://books.google.com/books?id=x0aHc4zxv74C&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=convert+radiance+to+spectral+flux+density&source=web&ots=XiBijbG6ro&sig=K7R2ancvT2N-9dWPxk30ngUOU0E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR7,M1
On page 5, and I quote: “the spectral radiance for a given waveband is the radiant flux density of that waveband…per unit solid angle.”
And [snip], explain why we cannot compare the atmosphere of Mars and Earth in this way?
And another thing Phil, Norm Kalmanovitch is a Canadian geophysicist with 35 years experience. What makes you qualified to say he does not understand the subject?
MattN (05:17:19) :
And another thing Phil, Norm Kalmanovitch is a Canadian geophysicist with 35 years experience. What makes you qualified to say he does not understand the subject?
Longer experience in physical chemistry, specifically in the area of spectroscopy, where his naive concept of saturation shows that he doesn’t have a good grounding in the subject. Also he completely ignores the vastly lower atmospheric pressure on Mars (less than 1% of Earth’s) and the effect on pressure broadening and hence absorption. The analysis of the two absorption curves is way more complicated than saying that they look the same!
MattN (05:17:19) :
I don’t know who “phil.dot” is, but if he’s the same guy posting at Climate Audit (and based on other comments by him on this site), he seems pretty qualified to talk about climate science.
I don’t mind tweaking him myself, but don’t assume he’s some AGW’er who just wandered in off the street.
Gary (02:37:01) :
Phil (23:20:13)
“Care to explain how that negative feedback works?”
Through the lapse rate. The lapse rate is not constant and is a function of absolute humidity. As humidity rises the lapse rate reduces. It needs only small changes in lapse rate to completely negate any doubling of CO2.
How does the change in lapse rate negate the effect of CO2 increase?
Just a quick note. Heidi Cullen is still working, full time as I understand, at the Climate Central, a non-profit organization based in Princeton, NJ. I think she will be fine, and it is likely that she will have the opportunity to express her opinions more freely by being in such an organization without any commercial obligations.
John McLondon (09:38:51) :
Just a quick note. Heidi Cullen is still working, full time as I understand, at the Climate Central, a non-profit organization based in Princeton, NJ.
A position she took up in January, she has not hosted ‘Forecast earth’ for quite some time (just makes guest appearances).
“I don’t know who “phil.dot” is”
And that really is the problem, isnt it John? Phil.dot, Eli Rabbet, Tamino and their ilk hide behind annonymous webnames. Who are you? What have you published? Why should I listen to you? Can you prove it! Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyte, Joe D’Aleo, John Christy/et al have NO PROBLEM posting as themselves and supplying thier credentials. Which is why I listen to them. They aren’t hiding.
So Phil.dot. Who are you and why should I listen to you?
“MattN”
“Who are you and why should I listen to you?”
REPLY: John M who are you and why should I listen to you? For that matter why should I listen to anyone too timid to use their name?
This is why I encourage people to stop hiding behind monikers and post with your real name. My view is that anonymous opinion, no matter how factual, rational, or relevant, (to borrow a famous phrase) “isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit”.
Science has never been advanced by anonymous cowards. – Anthony Watts
Fair enough Anthony.
I was just remarking on “MattN” complaining about someone being anonymous.
REPLY: I know you were, but I’m just trying to make a point too. Anonymity counts for zilch. Anonymous arguments are sub-zilch.
– Anthony
Anthony,
Just one more and I’ll quit, as I respect your opinion and this is your blog.
But what does it matter if an anonymous commenter posts a traceable fact or poses a cogent question?
Facts and ideas speak for themselves, and have no names.
I understand your sensitivity, however, as you have been personally attacked by anonymous bloggers.
REPLY: It is about credibility. With so many ideas and opinions being posted, it is often difficult to sort our truth from fiction. A name that you put to any idea or opinion says that you stand behind it. To me it is a distinction of importance. Questions evaporate when answered, facts can be checked, and anonymous contributions don’t matter much there. But when someone puts forth an idea, such as Bill Illis does, with the full weight of his name behind it, it is automatically up a notch on the respect meter.
People who attack (or support) such people from the safety of anonymity are not on the same level IMHO. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Moptop (10:17:47) :
You wrote at the end of that post, “Remember when “Question Authority” was a shibolith of the left? Now it is “Don’t Question Authority””
An astute observation on your part and succinctly put.
[snip]
MY POV.
A Blog is very much like an ancient forum. I.e we all sit around in a circle and discuss…
I prefer to be known for where I stand. Hence I use my real name.
I’m not going to judge anyone else for what they call themselves, as long as it’s consistent so that I can get a sense of who is speaking.
On another topic. H.R. notes that Moptop pointed out that “Question Authority” has been turned around by the Left – Well now that they own congress…
IMHO It’s indicative of the diminishment of respect for free speech.