THE Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is slashing the budget for its network of foreign correspondence* when more than ever Australia needs to be able to accurately and continually assess its place in a rapidly changing global power dynamic.
At the same time some local ABC journalists, like Robyn Williams from the Science Show, are peddling alarmist propaganda while denigrating our best independent thinkers.*
At Senate Estimates in Canberra* last week, Senator Eric Abetz queried Managing Director, Mark Scott, on the treatment of Bob Carter by Mr Williams and in particular asked why the week Professor Carter’s new book was launched, instead of discussing the book, The Counter Consensus, the Science Show paraded a British journalist masquerading as a climate expert to attack a paper published by Professor Carter two years earlier.
Some of the transcript follows and is entertaining in parts:
Senator ABETZ—So let us hope it was not illegally obtained. I move on to the ABC’s Science Show where Bob Ward was interviewed to criticise, I understand, a work of Professor Carter. What are Mr Ward’s qualifications to do so and does he have any peer-reviewed publications on climate change in any academic scientific journals?
Mr Scott—I do not have all these details. I know that he works for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, where he is policy and communications director, but I do not have the background of his own output.
Senator ABETZ—Could you find out for us what academic scientific journals he has written in that are peer-reviewed in relation to climate change?
Mr Scott—I do understand he was critical of Professor Carter and Professor Carter was offered the opportunity to respond to Mr Ward’s claims, but Professor Carter rejected the offer and submitted a written statement which I think was put on the Radio National website….
Senator ABETZ—Thank you. In the promo for this segment Ward was quoted as saying it was ‘the worst paper ever published on the subject’. Can you take on notice for me how often that promo was played around Australia?
Mr Scott—We will try and ascertain that.
Senator ABETZ—What did Mr Ward actually critique and why on that program? As I understand it, he was critiquing an article Professor Carter wrote in 2008 that had very conveniently happened to coincide in the few days before Professor Carter was launching a new book.
Mr Scott—We will take it on notice, Senator.
Senator ABETZ—It may well be one of those wonderful coincidences that seem to happen, like tweets and shoe throwing.
Mr Scott—I must say that books being published do generate publicity and coverage, there is no doubt about that.
Senator ABETZ—But why does somebody then spend their whole time talking about something that was two years old rather than the actual book?
Mr Scott—I will take that on notice.
CHAIR—I have a request from Senator Ludlam. He has two questions which he says will take less than 10 minutes. Do you have got an appropriate time you want to break?
Senator ABETZ—I was about to move on to another question.
CHAIR—Senator Ludlam for a few questions, then back to Senator Abetz….
Senator ABETZ—If I may, I will go back to where I left off in relation to Mr Ward’s description of Professor Carter’s work as ‘the worst paper ever published on the subject’. How often was this played, and what sort of editorial policy was used to allow that to be used in a promo? It was, quite frankly, just gratuitous denigration. It did not really add anything to the debate; it was just gratuitous denigration of—
Senator Conroy—That is an opinion—
Senator ABETZ—No. ‘The worst paper ever published on the subject’—it is very difficult to put that into any category other than gratuitous denigration unless the ABC had done some genuine analysis to say that, of all the climate scientists around the world, they had looked at all the papers and they had come to the
conclusion that this was the worst one. I doubt that that occurred.
Mr Scott—I do not recall the promo, but I would say this: that is not the ABC’s view; that is the view of Mr Ward from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So I think the question is: was it a reasonable apprehension on the part of the Science Show people, the people who had done the interview, that that was Mr Ward’s genuinely held view? Our interviewers, in a sense, ask questions of those guests they have. When we do an interview with you, Senator Abetz, we are not fact checking everything that you say before we put you to air. We respect that you have a position in society, you have a level of expertise. We reference you and your view is expressed. An offer was made, as I said, to Professor Carter to appear on the program. He declined that but he did issue a statement and we made that statement available.
Senator ABETZ—Yes, but after he has had a promo run against him saying that he had produced ‘the worst paper ever published on the subject’, it is hardly conducive to him then coming on the program, I have to say.
Mr Scott—There would be two views on that, Senator. One would be to let it pass by. The other one would be to take advantage of the opportunity to engage in conversation. I am not judging Professor Carter on it—
Senator ABETZ—No, I am judging the ABC, not Professor Carter, as to why they would run such a gratuitous denigration that is not based on any scientific analysis of the papers or any peer review of Professor Carter’s papers, and that is why I asked about Mr Ward’s qualifications in comparison to Professor Carter. It would be like a paralegal somewhere saying that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the worst lawyer in Australian history, running that as a promo and then somehow saying that that is fair.
Mr Scott—I am not in a position to judge Mr Ward’s expertise.
Senator ABETZ—I am the very, very concerned about the editorial policy which would suggest bias in allowing that to occur. In relation to labelling of groups and individuals, you have a policy on that. I understand that the ABC likes to describe people that have doubts about climate change as ‘sceptics’. What
label do you apply to those that are the non sceptics?
Mr Scott—I am not sure that there is a label.
********
* Slashing budget of foreign correspondents here
http://www.news.com.au/national/abc-cuts-infuriate-overseas-reporters/story-e6frfkvr-1225946456661
* Background here
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/10/our-malicious-abc-science-show/
* Hansard from SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ESTIMATES (Supplementary Budget Estimates), WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2010, CANBERRA
Thanks to Graham Young from On Line Opinion for discussions and briefings.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Graham Young is a very angry journalist and has Bob Ward in clear view. Young’s quest to find the ‘systematic analysis of the doubters’ leaves the ABC and Robyn Williams looking very stupid or hopelessly biased.
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2010/10/19/why-you-should-be-careful-dealing-with-bob-ward-director-of-communications-for-the-grantham-institute/
When you have a person like Williams trying to run the science show it says a lot about the quality of idiot you might decide to interview.
That you would allow someone to run the science show when he thinks that it is a possibility that SL’s could rise 100 metres by 2100 is a scandal and embarrassment to the national broadcaster plus our nation as well.
I mean he’s only over estimated the Ipcc SLR number by at least a hundred fold so I suppose that’s close enough for such a gang of yokels wasting millions of dollars on their stupid fantasy.
The ABC should feel this kind of heat every time that they employ their leftist driven shenanigans. Better still would be for Professor Carter to drag these Labor/Green tools into court.
Meanwhile some more of the reasons for that pesky natural climate change and for now a tiny bit of warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/02/the-atlantic-ocean-via-the-amo-drives-the-apparent-%e2%80%9cglobal-warming%e2%80%9d/
Neville – I’m afraid a Wattsup post from D’Aleo isn’t convincing evidence of anything – except of course for religious devotees such as yourself. And simply making stuff up is really desperate.
Sean – be careful what you wish for – going to court might require a full examination of the evidence. Suspect everyone will come off second best.
Jennifer,
Senator Abetz should keep up this line.
It is the best thing that the Labor party have in the way of a secret weapon. Keep up the good work of exposing it to the world
‘The implications of ABC Groupthink on the publics knowledge of Climate science are devastating.’
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/abc-of-bias.html
I guess we could ask what the Geological Society thinks about AGW?
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf
In spite of Scott’s denial, the comments by any interviewee are a direct responsibility of the ABC’s editorial committee.
If they were honest they would say “We apologise for our speaker and the views expressed are not necessarily those of the ABC” . No apology, no regrets, no disclaimer, as far as I am aware.
The ABC is therefore equally culpable as Ward himself. If the interview were pre-recorded, of course, they were absolutely responsible and could not even hide behind a disclaimer.
During the interview, Robyn Williams clearly “aided and abetted” the remarks by further questioning and by giving no warning to the interviewee that he had overstepped the mark.
It beggars belief, that an unrecorded interview would go on air without the participants having knowledge of at least an outline of what was to be asked and how the questions might be answered.
Further, in cases where the ABC is unhappy with an interview, it has been known to pull the words off its web site or even to not report the interview. It was also scheduled for repeat, though I was unable to connect to it – perhaps they were ashamed enough not to do so.
I believe Scott and Robyn will continue to struggle to defend this one with no light at the end of the tunnel for them!
John Nicol
Luke, no offense intended (seriously) but I think I should wish to happen what you would wish not to happen.
Abetz is right on the money; it is beyond dispute that influential frontline reporters [gag] like williams, o’brien and jones are strongly pro-AGW; whether there is a prevailing ‘editorial position is another point; Jonathan Green has published several anti-AGW articles at the Drum for instance.
On this issue of Ward’s designation of Bob Carter’s paper as the worst of all time; this is blantantly wrong as my 3 top worst 10 lists [2 here at Jennifer’s and one at Jo Nova’s] conclusively proves.
Cohenite worst 10 lists are pure personal indulgence and utterly disgraceful. This reinforces why sceptics are simply seen as political not scientific – and cannot be trusted.
Mate I’m amazed you said the above – and that simply undermines your entire case. Moreover the lists actually reflect what has given you cognitive dissonance indigestion. The reality is that “that GRL” paper was panned for being totally bogus. And you well know it ! GRL refused the authors’ response to the rebuttal comment.
luke, your comments about Carter’s paper and the Foster comment and GRL process are as unreasonable as the latter 2; here is what I said about the Foster comment to the McLean, Carter and De Frietas paper:
“Dr Foster and his merry band were decidedly unmerry about McLean et al’s paper. Foster was upset because they thought McLean detrended the temperature trend to prove that CO2 did not produce a trend. That would be silly. What McLean did was to detrend CO2 to establish the natural variation of temperature was dominated by natural things like ENSO with a 7 month lag. This was perfectly reasonable; people do the opposite all the time, which is to detrend ENSO so a supposed CO2 trend can be found. What Foster also missed was the significance of isolating natural variation so that its contribution to trend could be analysed. That is natural variation asymmetry all of which is explained in David Stockwell’s excellent comment on the McLean paper.”
It’s a simple concept really; maybe too simple for you intellectual types to understand. Carter’s paper is NOT one of the worst papers let alone the worst paper and it deals with a maligned and ignored concept: that natural variation can and does create trends and climate change.
Tell us when the comment is published in GRL (yawn)
Speaking of published papers, in respect of the 3 you sent to David Stockwell:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044865.shtml
This paper says this:
“The SCP warming is confined to
the upper 50 meters of the ocean and is associated with an
extreme and persistent anticyclone. Wind changes associated
with the anticyclone cause the oceanic warming primarily
through reduced latent and sensible (oceanic) heat
loss and by weaker advection of cold waters from the south.” [page 5]
This paper is essentially a Modoki paper claiming that [AGW] affected El Ninos are becoming more common; but the argument is circular and is defeated by the heat source; the top 50 meter heating is a classic mitigation of ocean upwelling effect which was responsible for the 1976 break in temperature. The problem for AGW is that the heat in the ocean cannot get there, in the first instance, by GHG backradiation, which is the MO of AGW; it can only come from TSI which has the radiative energy to cause OHC change. So when the paper says that the SST warming was caused by the change in wind patterns it has put the cart before the horse. One of the other papers clarifies this point:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n11/abs/ngeo984.html
The paper says this:
“Here
we use an ensemble of simulations with a coupled ocean–
atmosphere model to show that the sea surface temperature
anomalies associated with central Pacific El Niño force changes
in the extra-tropical atmospheric circulation”
That is, it is the ocean which determines atmospheric conditions not the other way round as assumed by the first paper by Lee et al; and it is TSI not AGW which determines both OHC and SST.
I have commented on the Santer PDO paper elsewhere.
A snippet from Bishop Hill.
Bob Ward calls for transparency in an opinion piece in Weather magazine (not online):
‘Climate researchers will have to be open to scrutiny by both their allies and their critics. The guiding principle for future communications by climate researchers should be to serve the public interest, to provide citizens and their representatives with the information they need and an understanding of the options available so that they can make informed choices and decisions.’
PR is flexible about the science, but the scientists feeding from the trough are not.
Cohers says : “The problem for AGW is that the heat in the ocean cannot get there, in the first instance, by GHG backradiation, which is the MO of AGW; it can only come from TSI which has the radiative energy to cause OHC change” He assures us pers. comm.
What utter bunk !
NEWS ALERT
Sorry to interrupt this hair splitting discussion, but Margot has something to say about the ABC.
Ooops…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm
Sure luke; your mate SOD agrees with you:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/23/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-two/
But I prefer what Tallboke says:
“I think the main point of disagreement between us is that you think the downwelling longwave radiation heats the bulk of the ocean. It doesn’t, because it can’t penetrate beyond its own wavelength and the surface doesn’t mix down as much as you seem to think it does. This is because wave action, according to the experiments I’m aware of, mixes down eddies which form much deeper down in the waves than downwelling IR can get to (~0.06mm). I’ve raised this point before, but you never address it, so I’ll keep repeating it until you do.
The downwelling radiation from the atmosphere hits the sea surface and is pretty much immediately re-emitted upwards. So yes, the ocean is emitting lots of IR, but no, the bulk of the ocean isn’t getting heated by it, because there is no mechanism (including your upside down ‘convection’) which will do the job. It goes upwards because that’s the easiest path for it to go.
The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere traps some of the heat for a while, bounces it back off the ocean surface, then loses it to space.”
I suppose you’ll be linking to the RC explanatiuon of LW heating of the oceans next?
Nah – I think the first comment at SOD says it all.
Not really:
“The sun warms the ocean bulk by penetrating tens of meters into it. LW does not. You claim increased LW ‘limits the emission rate’, yet the empirical evidence is that ocean heat content has been declining for seven years while co2 has increased”
Groupthink is intrenched, but the media still remains the soft underbelly in our effort to bring CAGW down.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_out_their_craft_to_the_global_warming_cause/
The empirical evidence is wiggle watching isn’t a trend.
Strangely El Gordo – I don’t think the global atmosphere actually cares what sceptics or the press think.
The political reality is that the weather is changing dramatically and the next 20 to 30 years will be similar to the 1947-76 cool PDO. Its a natural trend which will swallow your AGW signal.
There are few journalists with science degrees, yet most journalists can now begin discussing alternative viewpoints and not just rehashing the Greenpeace handout. Questioning the veracity of a press release would be a good start and interviewing scientists with a sceptical bent is the obvious way forward.
I don’t blame them for what has happened, reduced newsroom staff over the years has whittled away any integrity they may have held in the eyes of the populace.
Nevertheless, if they don’t give up the green pill its curtains for them.
Has anyone ever sent a probe down and checked the temperature of top part of the sea floor? I’m willing to bet that it’s warmer than the water 100m above it. And without any empirical evidence, I’m guessing that a significant amount of ocean heat comes from the mantle. I even suspect that all of these oscillations and PDO’s and LCD’s you guys keep talking about , are caused by mantle dynamics and nothing to do with climate forcings or anything atmospheric.
Now I’ll sit back and get shot at.
I’m not going to take a shot at you Derek – I believe what you say makes very good sense.
The mantle is thinner 4 km down at the bottom of a deep ocean than on the land surface. They showed that the melting of NE Greenland was due to heat from the mantle.
Unfortunately it doesn’t conform with the AGW group-think so it’s never discussed and is swept under the carpet.
Good on you Senator Eric Abetz <>
hmmm – Derek think how big ENSO or the PDO is…..
and isn’t funny that El Nino is the opposite of La Nina ….. hmmm …..
A recent paper by Yuko M Okumura and Clara Deser titled ‘Asymmetry in the duration of El Nino and La Nina’ note that persistent cold phases spanning more than two years (1949-51, 1954-56, 1973-76, 1983-86 and 2007-09) are stronger than El Nino.
‘During the persistent cold phases, negative SST anomalies re-intensify each winter, evidenced by the sawtooth shape of the Nino 3.4 time series. Although there were two prolonged warm phases during this period (1990-9 and 2002-05), none was as continuously strong as their cold counterparts.’
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/okumura_accepted.pdf
Coincidences do happen, it looks like a rerun of 1949-50.
Luke – as usual you’ve added nothing to Derek’s statement other than stupid rude remarks.
Has it ever occurred to you that what drives the ENSO cycles comes from the mantle’s cycles which may in fact be greater and far more complex than the oceans cycles?
El gordo, good find with the new ENSO asymmetry paper; this is not a new concept:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
ENSO asymmetry offers an entirely natural explanation for temperature trends during the 20thC; either through a dominance of one of the phases [ie there was 2 +ve PDOs and only one -ve PDO] and/or because either the El Nino or the La Nina stages are stronger than the other [as opposed to more frequent]. This relatively simple concept is maligned by AGW thinking which explains why there was so much venom directed at the McLean, Carter and De Frietas paper.
Stop the Press! Australia’s Global Warming Efforts Have Been Successful!
See more at
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/australias-global-warming-efforts-have-been-successful/
including this interesting statement
“Congratulations to the Australian government for having reversed global warming. Nature couldn’t have done it without the neurotic energy of clueless government officials.”
Luke, have a read of this;
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=seismic+predictors+of+el+nino%27s+revisited&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
And this;
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=seismic+predictors+of+el+nino%27s+revisited&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Unfortunately they’re both locked so I couldn’t copy and paste any tidbits. Also interesting to note the disclaimers at the end of both papers.
Dam, I was wondering why they were both the same address. The 2 papers are the 3rd & 4th from the top of the search page that opens up. they are both PDF’s.
So the seismic waves and/or mantle volcanism cause the initial faltering of the Walker circulation. And the MJO just causes Kelvin waves for fun.
Pullease guys !
Luke, MJO’s don’t cause ENSO’s and Kelvin waves are unidirectional eastwards and confined to equatorial regions so what’s your point? How does your last comment in any way argue against the 2 papers I linked to?
So luke doesn’t like tectonic activity causing ENSO but I suppose ENSO causing tectoinic activity will be OK;
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2481.full
Derek – MJO & Kelvin waves http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2005/2005GL022511.shtml
ENSO seems to start with atmospheric not oceanic phenomena was my point.
“ENSO seems to start with atmospheric not oceanic phenomena was my point.”
No, no, no; that is not possible; and therein lies the delusion of AGW; the tail doesn’t wag the dog!
Bunk Cohenite – El Nino events often start with a westerly wind burst perhaps in autumn from an MJO which “may” initiate a new El Nino or regenerate an old one.
The first signs of an El Niño are:
Rise in surface pressure over the Indian Ocean, Indonesia, and Australia
Fall in air pressure over Tahiti and the rest of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean
Trade winds in the south Pacific weaken or head east
Warm air rises near Peru, causing rain in the northern Peruvian deserts
Warm water spreads from the west Pacific and the Indian Ocean to the east Pacific. It takes the rain with it, causing extensive drought in the western Pacific and rainfall in the normally dry eastern Pacific. (says Wiki Pravda and many others)
One initiated the system phase locks and atmospheric and oceanic pattern reinforce each other. So eventually what causes what them becomes a moot point.
Welcome to systems modelling Cohenite – where some days it can be all dog and no tail. And other days all tail.
In any case the move to Modoki elegantly shows how AGW is now perturbing the system.
Watch what happens after this La Nina. Remember the next El Nino is just waiting out there in the physics. The Pacific – an ongoing prisoner of a damped oscillator mechanism?
Luke, most likely you have a sympathetic resonance situation going on between MJO’s, Kelvin waves and the warm phase of ENSO’s ’cause like I said before, Kelvin waves only travel east. If Kelvin waves are only involved in half of the ENSO equation then they can’t be a driver.
Coher’s is correct, there appears to be a number of harmonic events in play such as sea level changes contributing to and reinforcing seismic activity but it is fairly clear to me that geological forces are the main drivers of ENSO’s.
I’ve said before, when you consider the volume of the oceans and the heat capacity of water compared to air, it’s not possible for sea level air temperature to have any significant effect on ocean temperatures.
Try warming your bath with a hair dryer Luke……good luck.
Are you serious Luke? What do you think causes high and low pressure systems? Are you saying that over the tropics, insolation is significantly different over different spots and that causes ENSO’s?
Next you’ll be suggesting that air temperature drive the THC.
So the inmates summarily dismiss the last 20 years research on ENSO with a wave of the hand.
And so a mysterious volcano is causing a massive warm water anomaly and depressing the thermocline. Pullease ! Isn’t it fascinating that a bunch of dudes like you can wander into a hospital and give the local surgeons tips on surgery. Do you lot ever read anything? It’s easier to pretend there is no history of research and pull random factoids out of your bum.
And then every once in a while another volcano starts up on the other side and causes anti-ENSO. ROFL.
For heavens sake do a little research on ENSO 101 – depression of the thermocline http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html
Try and learn something – see panel 2
http://sites.google.com/site/dallastrees/el-nino-enso-education-video
and look – a whole array of buoys and sensors to inform us (well some of us)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/proj_over.html
Luke – your video states that ENSO starts with Upwelling – that’s an oceanic phenomena not an atmospheric.
No it didn’t – a COLD water upwelling as the “normal” state is a consequence of the Earth’s rotation. Nothing to do with volcanoes. ENSO is everything to do with slackening in winds. The big global hair-drier !!
I never said it was to do with volcanoes, the Upwelling is an oceanic event that CAUSES the winds, not the other way around.
The trade winds are the go.
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1156/tradesnino34of0.png
(1) the trade winds clearly cause the thermocline to deepen in the west in the “normal” state
(2) the relaxation of those winds, occasionally by an MJO event cause the move to El Nino
(3) the resultant Kelvin wave(s) then spread the warm waters east and perturb the thermocline
This is the established measured observed science.
Do the winds stem from seismic activity – no
Does a hair drier warm your bath tub – no – but certainly moves water towards one end.
Luke – the low pressure created by the warmer waters in the west cause the air in the colder (high pressure) region to move from high pressure to low pressure. (as winds do)
It is therefore the difference in ocean temperature thus causing air pressure difference that causes the wind. If there was no difference in the ocean temperature the winds would not occur.
I repeat – it is an oceanic event.
BTW – if the Coriolus force of the earth’s rotation causes the circular rotation and upwelling of the Pacific Ocean why wouldn’t the same force affect the liquid magma beneath the mantle in a similar fashion?
Nope – not if it’s an MJO
John – what is that you don’t understand about the thermocline?
And I see now by your logic that shape of all cyclones and anticyclones is driven by SSTs primarily – uh huh !
I understand the thermocline is the layer between cold and warm ocean regions, in an upwelling the cold water comes up from the lower ocean, full of nutrients and cools the air causing a high pressure area. There are upwellings throughout the planet, in Australia there’s one off the sunshine coast and one in the Southern Bight, they are not unique to Peru.
But because the upwelling cooler water creates cooler air (note water cooling air, not the other way around) the cooler air moves toward a low pressure area in the warmer west driving the cooler water with it.
Now this upwelling is caused by the Coriolis effect. Yet the earth’s magma is also affected by the coriolis effect and as the coast of Peru is associated with a tectonic plate pushing up against another plate and the actively volcanic Andes mountain range it seems reasonable to assume there must be some reaction from the magma upwelling also in the whole scheme of things. As I understand it there is constant submarine volcanic activity occurring along the interface of two tectonic plates.
Pity the upwelling is cold – so much for magma.
Anyway – you’re progressing John – so now tell us what happens to form an El Nino…. and how does an El Nino evolve ….
Modis image of the day gives us a glimpse of atmospheric gravity waves.
http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2010-11-06
there is cold and there is cold Luke, maybe you can tell me what forms an El Nino.
It’s a gread read and I believe 2011 will be an interesting year for Social Media, Public Relations and Publicists. Atleast we’re accepting new clients at Cloud 21 PR.