I was recently copied in on some correspondence between Marc Morano and a former television weather presenter, Anthony Watts, in which Watts gives a real insight into the extent to which the media now treat news and weather as entertainment:
Marc,
As a former television meteorologist, and having had to deal with some of the very same issues you cite, let me elaborate on behalf of TV meteorologists everywhere.
1) Many TV meteorologists don’t have control over their on-air content. Especially in large TV markets, the news director and producer often define what role weather has in the show. The maxim of “if it bleeds it leads” often applies to weather when weather is severe. “If it burns it earns” might apply to ratings and the AGW “crisis”.
2) Sometimes, there is undue pressure to sensationalize normal weather events, because of the trend of TV news towards such sensationalism. Just look at how TV news often take common ordinary things and turns them into “sensational” live stories these days.
3) Those TV meteorologists that want to tone down sensationalism in their own reporting often find themselves at the short end of the negotiating stick when contract renewal comes due. Rarely if ever does “how accurate have your forecasts been?” come into play, its all about ratings. Its all about the talent persona and how that persona is perceived by the viewer. If the TV meteorologist doesn’t toe the line in the branding such as “Action News” they can be looked at as “not a team player”. They may not want to go along with sensationalism, but they want to keep the job. Economics trumps factualism in many such situations.
4) Even in my own small town there recently has been a change to “Action News” branding. Now I’m seeing transitions between news stories with an animated graphic and a “swoosh” sound effect. Does it make the product any better? IMHO, not at all, but it does make it seem more “action” oriented. I blame Hollywood. Which is why we hear laser blasts and explosions in deep space during sci-fi movies. Reality is boring, “swoosh” rules.
5) Television news has changed in the last 20 years from being information oriented to entertainment oriented. Witness the daily Britney report if you don’t believe me. Thus, it is more about telling an engaging story, or being first, than it is about accuracy.
6) Science and entertainment merged in Al Gore’s AIT slideshow. Given that example, it is not surprising to see it emulated in TV news when weather is discussed.
Anthony Watts
www.itworks.com
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
blogs of course are about objective scientific enquiry and have nothing to do with perpetuating ideological beliefs.
Yes, I have long been fed up with the swoosh and rumble sound effects on TV news. Also dreary old images of cracked mud and bleaching skeletons.
There also seems to be a special lifeless, monotone voice used for disaster reporting. Like someone in deep depression. My bullshit antennae twitch as soon as I hear it.
I may be an old cynic, but you can’t fool all of the people, all of the time.
He’s telling Morano that? My irony meter just blew up.
Anthony, This blog has the word ‘politics’ in its title – see the main header. If you want a blog more concerned with climate science try: http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html
Jen, you are implying this blog does not present science?
Fair point, its usually pseudo science dressed up as science. Perhaps a qualifier is required on all future climate science related blogs… “All information contained herein is not based on science, rather politics and ideology” etc etc
Jen, its just not cricket, is it, pretending weather is interesting, sensationalising it, and going for market share. Hope the media dont do the same to sport. As for science, I can remember the Australian press less than two years ago were consistently running a very strong sceptic line on global warming. They used to write about ‘so called global warming’ and about ‘theories held by some scientists’. Now they get attention by moving on and going for the sensational bits. Do we get the media we deserve?
SJT, please tell me you were sitting on it at the time. Please,please,please.
The news will sensationalise anything that is in the public consciousness that they can hype up and get people watching.
The line between facts and entertainment is very hard to define when it comes to commercial news
Curious how Anthony seeks to try and re-position the blog as non-science now that the science is really starting to tear serious strips off the rotting carcass of Climate Cretinism. But in a way he is half right. His own posts would hardly be described as “have(ing) nothing to do with perpetuating ideological beliefs”, would they?
Ian, I believe Jen posted “Anthony, This blog has the word ‘politics’ in its title – see the main header. If you want a blog more concerned with climate science try…”
Not sure how else this could be interprested other than – this blog is not about science.
Surely even someone with your degenerative myopia could see that?
So that’s why they had the ‘weathergirl’ on the TV when I was a youngster.
Motty, you say ‘science is really starting to tear serious strips etc’. Really? La Ninas ( in Australia) do funny things to peoples brains if they cant get out. Pray tell , what science, what strips, how wide,and OK here to be qualitative how serious?. Evidence pls. Otherwise who could ever take your comment seriously. What a hide.!Give us a break!
Anthony
So we conclude you don’t know what science is.
Good.
Anthony Watts just finished the survey of California’s surface stations.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/california-ushcn-station-surveys-are-complete/
Now it’s on to the rest of the country.
“The goal is not to exposure observers, or their locations, but rather to accurately record the current (and past if possible) station measurement environment. That can be done without compromising privacy.”
when you look at the vitriol directed at other’s doing their work, such as Hansen and Jones, no wonder you’d feel like protecting your employees from nutters.
SJT – your feeble comments don’t excuse NOAA/NWS obstructing the meteorological examination of their temperature stations. The truth is that there are suspect US taxpayer funded USHCN stations that taxpayers should know about. There is plenty of vitriol about – most of it comes from the proponents of a man-made climate catastrophe.
” Louis Hissink says:
January 9th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Re #29
Noo, have you looked at their retirement fund entitlements? I much prefer a more direct approach – baseball bats aimed at salient parts of the landing gear, as a wild postulate. 🙂 (Knee-capping as the Bronx Boys would recognise)”
What has that got to do with TV meterologist Anthony Watts and USHCN stations?
It’s got to do with vitriol and threats directed at those conducting climate related work.
So Bazza has had his head in a paper bag for the past 12 months, has he? Strips off the carcass include;
Temperature adjusted for Volcanic areosols reveal no warming for the past 24 years.
Serious errors in the oceanic acidity scare.
Serious problems with Urban Heat Island effects.
Major revisions of sea level rise projections.
Chinese nuclear power program trashing the entire upper half of the emissions projections.
New research on the cyclical nature of glacial advance and decline.
The total absence of any reduction in Antarctic ice mass.
And the list goes on. So do let us all know when you are up to speed, punk.
You left out “400 prominent scientists”, Motty.
“Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead,” said James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and among the first to sound the alarm over climate change.”
I don’t see why we should be surprised that weather “reporting” is seen as an entertainment product.
Just look at wildlife conservation. It’s long been a dumbed down fixture of the “lifestyle” sections.
Well you can be sure of one thing, you will no longer hear the entertainers droning on about the “melting arctic” this year!
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/01/northern-hemisphere-sea-ice-extent-now.html
STJ said “You left out “400 prominent scientists”, Motty.”
Four hundred and one.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080103/COLUMNISTS03/801030456/0/FRONTPAGE
The list is growing.
Anthony, To clarify, this blog is about science … but not as technical as many purely science blogs. for example, i think one or two of Paul’s early posts were too technical for the average reader here to understand. this site is really pitched at the non-specialist interested in the environment but also the associated politics, associated science and the list goes on…. you can read more here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/display/blog_info.html
I was merely suggesting in my first comment above that if you are unhappy with the variety and community here that you should try a more purely science orientated and necessarily more technical blog … there are lots around.
So lets get back to the topic at hand … reporting on the environment related issues of weather and climate in the popular media
Mark, re ‘the melting arctic’.
Yes the “global warming fraternity” are very quiet on this at the moment; maybe they are all aboard ships cruising through the North West Passage, viewing the WWF’s drowning Polar Bears.
“So do let us all know when you are up to speed, punk”
It’s good to see someone with enough passion to resort to insults over argument. No references, no logic. The wingnuts: still providing laughs in the post-Howard era.
Preview is your friend. It allows you a pause to reflect and remove that insulting slur or libel from an otherwise well thought out and persuasive post.
TV is a business, sensation sells.
If you want sober weather reports, stop drinking and look outside.
I think this thread is the pinnacle of what the blog has become. If “this blog is about science … but not as technical as many purely science blogs. for example, i think one or two of Paul’s early posts were too technical for the average reader here to understand. this site is really pitched at the non-specialist interested in the environment but also the associated politics, associated science and the list goes on….’
then posts like the climate change and whaling threads say it all. No point in trying to learn anything from here anymore. Its all insult and unsubstantiated fact. Can’t count how many times Mott has been asked “Evidence pls.” We never get any, just abuse.
“It’s good to see someone with enough passion to resort to insults over argument.”
Yep, that’s about the sum of it from the likes of Ian Mott, Louis Hissink, Schiller, Sid and Woody. Anthony and SJT have my utmost respect for the fact they can continue to post here and not respond in kind to the aforementioned.
Time for a change.
James, did you even get past point 1 of that link?
“1. Why have there been no rebuttals to the data in Crichton’s book?”
There have been numerous rebuttals of Chrichton. Not that a work of fiction even deserves a rebuttal.
“5. The Milankovich Cycles have accounted for all the interglacial periods in the past. Why not now? The Milankovich Cycles occur because of the following phenomena.”
They have looked at the Milankovich cycles.
Honestly, why would you consider what a Professor of Chemistry has to say, when all he does is say he is ignorant of the science, and he’s going to sit there being ignorant until someone comes along to him personally and explains it all to him because he’s too damn lazy to chase up the answers himself.
Winston,
I would hope the ‘specialists’ and ‘non-specialists’ who post here could and would provide evidence to back up their claims.
Winston, welcome to the world of politics. Sorry if comments fall below your standard, thats the problem when dealing with average people.
Just remember who the electorate is why you should support democracy.
Winston Smith,
how old are you?
As for posting, I am currently revising an important article for Henry Thornton that should hit the streets this weekend. Henry’s editor is one tough task master!
Winston Smith!
“unsubstantiated fact”
Now, that’s a new one on me?
a fact is a fact, so I thought, silly me, not when it’s “unsubstantiated ”
It’s your weblog Jen, you should know. Rog, Louis, Ian, Marcus25, yeah, all the evidence is before me. Thanks.
One can only suspect a tad of bias on the part of Winston Smith. Many of us who question the ‘science’ of AGW on this blog, do post refrences to data we present….And, is it true, that abuse only comes from one side of the debate?
Well, well.!
And Winston Smith may ponder why Anthony and SJT, as well as their confreres such as Ender, Gavin and that well oiled abuse machine, the ‘Luke’ identity, don’t publish under their real and full names, as many of us do. Could it be because many of them are in fact, one and the same?
Yes, it is time for a change!
Back to the thread, I did hear one weather announcer on radio today make a comment about the heatwave in places like Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth today, being typical of global warming.
However, such heatwaves are nothing new and a perusal of recent Aust. temp. data would in fact show that several record ‘highs’ have been set. (very much talked about, both in the media, and by the likes of the BoM and CSIRO). However, during the same period, there have been several record ‘low temps.’ set. (Not talked about by any of the afore said!).
So lets look at the record high and low temps. for the three above cities. (taken from the BoM’s own data).
Melbourne; High, 40.3deg,in 1905. Low, 7.5deg in 1938.
Adelaide; High, 44.0deg, in 1939. Low 10.1 deg in 2002.
Perth; High, 42.0 deg in 1985. Low, 10.6deg in 1921.
Well, I suppose the above would just not make a story, would it?
The above temp. records being for today’s date.
“Yes the “global warming fraternity” are very quiet on this at the moment; maybe they are all aboard ships cruising through the North West Passage, viewing the WWF’s drowning Polar Bears.”
That explains it! Actually they are probably trapped in the record fast freeze. And they are likely watching the polar bears enjoying a game of hockey (rather than drowning!).
SJT said – “Honestly, why would you consider what a Professor of Chemistry has to say, when all he does is say he is ignorant of the science, and he’s going to sit there being ignorant until someone comes along to him personally and explains it all to him”
I believe that was his point. After who knows how many billions of dollars spent, concerts hosted, movies shown, TV specials aired, newspaper articles written, climate conferences attended, refereed papers published, not to mention 4 IPCC reports, a learned man is no more clear on the scientific mechanism of climate change then you are.
“Honestly, why would you consider what a Professor of Chemistry has to say, when all he does is say he is ignorant of the science, and he’s going to sit there being ignorant until someone comes along to him personally and explains it all to him”.
Svante August Arrhenius, the revered author of AGW, was a chemist. Seems that there are chemists and chemists!
Apparently there are Allen. You can have a chemist from over a century ago get started on the right track. Yet today a scientist expects to be personally spoonfed the science.
As it is, Arrhenius was wrong on a major aspect of CO2 as a GHG. Read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Sid, you’d have to win an award for most incoherent post. For starters I can assure you that not only is anthony my real name, I only post under 1 name on this blog. I’m sure Jen can check my email adderss and confirm if you really want.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086282_All.shtml
as far as I understand melbourne airport is in melbourne and 44 degrees is hotter than 40 (see lnik above)…Secondly a heatwave is not just a hot day, its a series of hot days. Whats the record number of days over 40 in a year for those places? Melbourne currently at 4.
Louis – do you actually have any gentle readers yet? seems like alot of work to keep yourself entertained.
SJt any time you feel up to it, break out that spoon.
Give us a detailed scientifically derived explanation of how atmospheric co2 content causes a 2.5 – 5 degrees C temperature rise. Make sure and describe the experimentation that supports your explanation, and site any relevant physical laws pertaining.
Also make sure that it is reproducable – we’re all Popperians here, right?
the experiments been running for a while know James and the results are in. Time to wake up and smell the climate change.
Perhaps some blog advice for 2008?
“I think we have to become peaceful people. Do good jobs, but be rather peaceful about it.” – Sir Edmund Hillary.
James; me thinks we have gone a bit beyond the high school stuff
At BoM there is a 78 page doc on “The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change”
The supporting research is covered here
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/reports/html/research.shtml
The NSW Govt. DPI go into the BoM 2003 model here
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/topics/climate-change/projects-modelling
Take your time hey
BTW folks, I post on this blog under my own name. Having a long association with instrument engineering I have a keen interest in the development of scientific measurement over the years since my retirement.
Models are just models, the globe is the real thing and we are only just getting the picture.
Recently I came across an exhibition of Australian Antarctic scientific research at the Tasmanian Museum. Most impressive was an outline of work on weather and oceans. Currents have been identified and are displayed in 3D.
“Islands to Ice” was featured on the ABC Science Show. An education kit is here;
http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/education/i2i.html
Measuring the all layers of atmosphere and ocean has been difficult. Automatic data logging was a new concept in the 70’s. Yesterday a new submarine probe was announced to study coral in the depths off Tasmania.
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=450505
I’ve always found this site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
is very good for tracking the Arctic and Antarctic ice. The supposed ‘recovery’ of Arctic ice is actually not happening, remember it’s the thickness that really counts.
Apparently the arctic has thinned by about 50% since 2004.
Thick ice will last the whole summer, this ice is so thin it actually started to retreat around Svalbard on about Jan 4th. It may re-freeze but definitely will go quickly in Summer. I am taking a guess that it will be the very similar to last years melt. If it’s a greater extent, it won’t be by much.
Nathan beat me to the punch. Searching for the latest on ice etc in 2008 I came across the odd blog watching for “rapid” Artic “refreezing” but more importantly new work in the upper atmosphere and shifting cyclones.
Best to come up for discussion is from a ten year UK Met climate change forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080102.html
“Apparently the arctic has thinned by about 50% since 2004”. Well is that as thin as when the subs surfaced at the pole 40 odd yrs ago? And several times since! 2004 was indeed a very cold year there too.
The important thing to remember is that this ice extent had occurred by Dec. before winter really began. Any assessment of ice thickness before March/April, is a tad premeture.
God bless the Met Office.
At the beginning of last year they forecast that “2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.” See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
2007(Jan-Nov) was, however, 0.11 degrees C cooler than 1998 and five of the other years in between.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20071213.html
But, of course, there is no mention of this in the following press release:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080102.html
But I am glad they have mentioned their forecast for the next 10 years, and I will remember to follow them over these same years, particularly their last bullet point:
– our first ever forecast for the next ten years – in 2014 the world will be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.
I hope everyone else here does as a well.
Sid, I am not sure. However the records exist as they originally calculated thickness based on submarine measurements (although they have recently changed to satellites). It appears that the ‘thin-ness’ of the ice is an unusual feature.
There are some papers recently published on it – You can read them using Google Scholar.
Also if you look at the Cryosphere website you can directly compare sea ice extent between any two dates. The recent sea ice recovery, wasn’t that impressive. And the present sea-ice extent is much lower than most of the years since they started measuring it with satellites (1979).
The last few posts on forecast verification at Prometheus have been particularly interesting.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
Peruse at your leisure.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/naked-news-fleshes-out-its-coverage/2008/01/11/1199988554671.html
just in case no-one was convinced of where news reporting is at…
Probably the most extreme summer weather conditions experienced in Melbourne (and Victoria) in living memory were in January 1939 when, according to the IPCC, atmospheric CO₂ levels were about 310 ppm.
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/fire4.htm
Funny how the media’s not reporting this:
http://junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/11/wow-thats-a-big-southern-sea-ice-anomaly-in-the-southern-summer/
Thanks for making this post Jennifer. Just a note for readers, the “Anthony” in comment #1 is not me, but another individual.
For an interesting read on problems associated with an official climate monitoring station in the states, see my writeup on the USHCN station in Reno, NV.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-46-renos-ushcn-station/
“Has the weather gone Hollywood? Media accused of promoting ‘storm porn’…
“In an effort to grab higher ratings and boost advertising in a fiercely competitive market, some television stations are being accused of exaggerating, dare we say hyping, their weather forecasts…
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/292152
Now where did C3PO run off to?
Jen I am sorry. My blunt nature seems to be
scaring off your loyal band of climate alarmists.
And that’s no fun for anybody.
Lucky thing a new crop has sprouted.