Send in the clouds

ABC Environment online posted a brief article by reporter Graham Readfearn titled "Climate change and the role of clouds" on July 12. The article opens with the rather pithy statement "Clouds and water vapour play an important part in climate change, but the exact details of their role remains cloudy." Based on what follows perhaps ABC should have left it there.

In the ABC article Prof. Steven Sherwood, a professor of atmospheric physics at the University of New South Wales Climate Research Centre is quoted as saying: "We have quite a good understanding of water vapour. All our models say water vapour will increase by about seven per cent for every one degree of warming and we have observations to show that's happening."

We wondered which observations Prof. Sherwood was referring to, so we sent him an email. However Prof. Sherwood has not (yet) replied and given the ABC failed to do their job and ask which observations Prof Sherwood was referring to, we are left to speculate on their source. 
It's probably not the observations reported in a paper titled "Trends in middle - and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data" by Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michale Pook. This paper, published in the peer reviewed journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, finds that: 
First, the observations of relative humidity RH do not support the proposition that emerges from the behavior of general circulation climate models that the value of RH at any given height in the troposphere remains fairly constant under the influence of global warming (e.g., Soden and Held 2006; Pierrehumbert et al. 2007). 
Second, while the specific humidity q has increased at the lowest levels of the troposphere over the last three or four decades in concert with the surface and 1,000 hPa temperatures, it has decreased in the middle and upper levels. This is particularly obvious in the tropics, where the crossover to negative trends occurs somewhere about 850 hPa—roughly near the top of the convective boundary layer... These negative trends are not supported either by the predictions of climate models or by the few indications from satellite observations (e.g., Bates and Jackson 2001; Soden et al. 2005; Minschwaner and Dessler 2004) that the long-term trend of q in the upper troposphere is positive.
It seems these observations of water vapour don't support Prof. Sherwood, I guess he must be referring to something else.

Once again ABC's reliance on too few experts leaves it in the lurch. Perhaps the ABC could have asked Dr Roy Spencer for a comment? Or perhaps Prof Richard Lindzen?


ABC Reply 20/8/2010
Thank you for your email regarding the ABC Environment feature article 'Climate change and the role of clouds', published on 12 July. I understand you believe this article lacks balance.

I should explain that the article is categorised as topical and factual content for the purposes of the ABC's editorial standards. This content category is not subject to any requirement to achieve balance within individual programs or stories. However, it is subject to the impartiality requirement outlined in section 7.4.1 of the ABC's Editorial Policies (http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm), as follows:

"The ABC is committed to impartiality: where topical and factual content deals with a matter of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe."

I understand the article was intended to canvas some of the current knowledge on the role of clouds and water vapour in climate change. ABC Innovation has advised that due to the incredible volume of scientific literature on climate science it was neither possible nor desirable to comprehensively cover all published articles and researchers in the field. However, the article cited four sources: Professor Steve Sherwood, Dr Rob Colman, research published in the journal Science, and research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It also made reference to two current research projects: the VAMOS Ocean-Cloud-Atmosphere-Land Study and the Silver Lining Project.

I note your comment that the article did not include the perspectives of Dr Roy Spencer or Professor Richard Lindzen. ABC Innovation has advised that they were not interviewed because, in contrast to Professor Sherwood and Dr Colman, they are not cloud and water vapour specialists based in Australia.

Audience & Consumer Affairs has reviewed the article, considered the perspectives it presented, and considered the range of other content on climate change and cloud science published on ABC Online. On review, we are satisfied that a diversity of perspectives has been demonstrated across the platform over time, in accordance with the requirements of section 7.4.1 of the Editorial Policies.

I note your comments about Professor Sherwood's reference to observations showing that water vapour is increasing by about 7% for every degree of warming. ABC Innovation has drawn attention to the paper 'Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content' by Santer et. al., published in the journal PNAS in 2007, which corroborates Professor Sherwood's claim. However, I should point out that the claim was clearly attributed to Professor Sherwood and did not constitute factual content for the purposes of section 7.4.2(a) of the Editorial Policies.

Please be assured that your comments, including your suggestion for a follow-up article featuring the views of Dr Spencer and Professor Lindzen, have been noted and conveyed to relevant staff in ABC Innovation. Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

From the Vault - You say Scientists, we say Engineers

Independent Complaints Review Panel Decision: Catalyst

24/04/2002

The Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) has upheld a complaint made by Dr Brian Lloyd and Mr Michael Rice against the ABC Television program Catalyst.
The ICRP Report stated, in part:
'Two engineers, Dr Brian Lloyd and Mr Michael Rice, complained to the ICRP about the Catalyst program of 31 October 2002 which dealt with research into brain trauma following car crashes'.
The complainants said the program attributed the work to 'scientists' without mentioning the fact that the great bulk of it had been done by engineers, with some input from scientists. Dr Lloyd and Mr Rice said engineering was not a subset of science. Engineers were not scientists nor scientists engineers. 'Supers' at the bottom of the screen had identified some of the participants as engineers, but these had been fleeting and most viewers would not have noticed them.
Both complainants say that the persistent downgrading of engineering, as particularly exemplified in the ABC program, is against the national interest, as it makes engineering less attractive as a profession, and limits the number of young people entering it.
In its reply the ABC has defended the use of the umbrella term 'scientists' as it includes a number of professions without the need to itemise them. 'Scientist', the reply says, is a term easily understood by a diverse audience and is short and succinct.
The Panel finds, however, that as the bulk of the work done on setting up the conditions under which causes of brain damage could be examined, was done by engineers, the complainants are justified in their objections to engineers and scientists being lumped together. 'Engineer' is also an everyday term understood by a diverse audience, and is short and succinct. Catalyst is a program which seeks to inform its viewers about developments in various disciplines and it is therefore important it gets its definitions right.
The Panel notes that the complainants seek only from the ABC an acknowledgment that their objection to engineers being loosely described as 'scientists' will be taken into account in future programs. Limiting its finding to `unfair treatment', the complaint is upheld.
In his capacity as Editor-in-Chief, Managing Director Russell Balding, has written to the complainants to apologise on behalf of the ABC and inform them that due regard will be shown in future to the use of the terms 'engineers' and 'scientists'.
The ICRP is an independent body established by the ABC Board to investigate allegations of 'serious cases of bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment arising from an ABC broadcast or broadcasts.'
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s839551.htm

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives.

Missing News: Climate models are an each way bet

Updated October 6 2010-see below
The NSW Government are in the process of introducing "Water Sharing plans" across the state. Based on the ABC 's reporting it seems that the plans have been met with some controversy. 

Irrigators await water charge decision (20/5/2010)

About 50 Peel Valley irrigators last night attended their first meeting since the Peel Valley Water Sharing Plan was gazetted. Under the new agreement, which comes into force on July 1, irrigators must make do with only 6.2 gigalitres of water. They are also waiting nervously on a recommendation from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which will see charges for bulk water rise dramatically. Laurie Pengilly, from the Peel Valley Water Users Association, says water users could be paying more than three times their current rate.

(See also Draft water plan anger sparks talks - 6/11/2009, Call for amended water sharing plans-19/2/2010, and Irrigators hope for future water plan 'reassessment - 23/4/2010).

One aspect of the plans that the ABC does not appear to have reported on is the results of climate modelling contained in the NSW Office of Water's Background document titled "Draft Water Sharing Plan Greater Metropolitan Region unregulated river water sources." dated May 2010. From page 11...

Climate change and variability

The NSW Office of Water has forecast rainfall and runoff across NSW using 15 global climate models for the IPCC SRES A1B climate scenario. The A1B climate scenario indicates a global temperature in 2030 that is 0.90C higher than the global temperature in 1990. For the Greater Metropolitan Region the worst case forecast is a 5-10 per cent reduction in mean annual rainfall by 2030, while the best case is a 5-10 per cent increase in mean annual rainfall. 7 of 15 models predict that mean annual rainfall would decrease by between 2 and 10 per cent, while 8/15 models predict that rainfall would increase by between 2 and 10 per cent by 2030. The worst case prediction for mean summer rainfall is a reduction of between 5 and 10 per cent, while the best case prediction is an increase by between 10 and 20 per cent. 13/15 models predict that summer annual rainfall would increase by between 2 and 20 per cent, while 2/15 models predict a decrease of between 2 and 10 per cent. Worst case winter rainfall is a reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent, while the best case prediction is an increase of between 2 and 10 per cent. 7/15 models predict that annual winter rainfall for the region shall fall by between 2 and 20 per cent, while 8/15 models predict an increase in annual winter rainfall of between 2 and 10 per cent. The Office of Water has recently configured a hydrology model for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River to estimate variation in flows and frequency and duration of licensed access to flows due to water sharing rules. On completion of the hydrology modelling required for the plan, the Office intends to commence modelling the effects of the above rainfall forecasts on flows and water user access across the plan area.

Based on these modelling results the NSW Office of Water could have saved some money and flipped coin or rolled a dice for the same result. No wonder the ABC didn't cover the results - the headline"Climate model results no better than a magic 8 ball" certainly doesn't fit in with the ABC's Groupthink position on climate change. 


Update: We provide the following correspondence between ABC and ANW:
From ABC Received 8 September, 2010:
Thank you for your email.
On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that ABC News reported the Water
Sharing Plan on a newsworthy basis and in keeping with 5.2.2(f) of the ABC Editorial
Policies.   News reported the release of the plans and sought reaction from those
affected.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments are noted.  For your reference, the
ABC's Code of Practice is available online at:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf
Yours sincerely
Audience & Consumer Affairs


ANW replied 8/9/2010:
ABC Audience and consumer affairs appear to have mis-understood the complaint. I agree
that  the Water Sharing Plan was newsworthy. The complaint outlined lack of questioning
on the part of the ABC such that important information regarding the need for the plan
(ie failure of climate models to provide a degree of certainty over future rainfall
either more or less) was not covered. Are you suggesting that the ABC did not find
problems with the models newsworthy?


ABC responded 6 October 2010
Thank you for your email.  I apologise for the delay in responding.
I do not believe I have misunderstood your complaint; the story in question highlighted newsworthy elements of the Water Sharing Plan and I am satisfied that this was in accordance with 5.2.2 (f) of the Editorial Policies.  It noted that the new agreement was shortly to be introduced and included comment from those most affected; the irrigators.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments are noted.
Yours sincerely
Audience and Consumer Affairs


ANC replied 6 October 2010
Thankyou for your reply. I remain unsatisfied with it and in accordance with ABC's complaints process I request you forward it on the ABC Complaints Review Executive for further deliberation. The complaint outlined lack of questioning on the part of the ABC News. Why didn't ABC News provide coverage of the climate modelling results of the NSW Office of Water that show half the models predict more rain, and half predict less rain? Are you suggesting that the ABC NEWS did not find problems with the models newsworthy?


ABC provided this reply October 6, 2010

Thank you for your email.

To clarify, in the context of a short news online story which focussed on the introduction of the new agreement and the concerns of the irrigators, it was not necessary for the item to include reference to the climate models you cite to meet the requirements of 5.2.2(f).

If you would still like your complaint referred to the Complaints Review Executive, I would be happy to do so.

Yours sincerely
Audience and Consumer Affairs

ANC reply 6 October 2010

The concerns of irrigators were the subject of a number of ABC news reports, not just "a short news online story". The omission of important newsworthy points such as the failure of climate models needs to be seen in this broader context, and as such this news should have been part of ABC News' coverage of the issue. In this sense the ABC has also failed to achieve balance in its reporting. 

In light of this, please pass this on to ABC CRE for further consideration.

We await ABC CRE's response.

News from the Russian Front: truth hard to find in report of crop destruction

ABC rehash a Reuters report under the headline "Crops destroyed as Russia swelters in heatwave" News online 16 July. The report claims that: "Soaring temperatures across large swathes of Russia have destroyed nearly 10 million hectares of crops and prompted a state of emergency to be declared in 17 regions."

However a check of alternate news sources reveals conflicting factual information.

RIA Novostri the Russian International News Agency provide the following information in their report "Drought destroys 7% of Russia's grain crops" of the 14 July: "Drought has destroyed about 7% of crops in several major Russian grain-growing regions equal to an area of some 3.2 million hectares, the Agriculture Ministry said on Tuesday."

So is it 10 million hectares or 3.2 million?

           

In a report titled “Weather against harvest in Russia”, The Voice of Russia report that “A state of emergency has been declared in 14 regions, while 4 others are under consideration.” While in its report Russia Drought Hurts Half of Grains in Stricken Areas, Bloomberg mark the number of affected regions at 11:"Soil drought has affected more than half of grain plantings in 11 regions along the Volga". On the other hand RIA Novostri suggest 9: "The Russian Ministry of Agriculture says a state of emergency has been declared in nine agricultural areas."

So exactly how many regions are under a “State of Emergency” 17, 14, 11, 9?

The Gulf Times also credit Reuters in their story "Kremlin bids to tackle worst drought in decades". This report also suggests a drought affected area of about 9 million hectares but rather than "crop destruction" the Gulf Times indicates the grain has shrivelled: "The Russian Grain Union, an industry lobby, said the drought was Russia’s worst in 130 years and had already shrivelled grain on 9mn hectares - an area the size of Portugal and about one fifth of the total area sown for this year’s harvest.”

So, are we talking crop devastation , or a reduction in productivity? 

ABC's coverage doesn't mention the effect of the drought on wheat prices but there are conflicting headlines here also:

Bloomberg: "Wheat Surges Most in 19 Months as Drought Hurts Russia Crop"

Commodity Online:  "Global wheat prices drop despite Russia drought"

So are prices on the way up or down?

The Gulf Times report (above) appears to have an expanded version of the Reuters story that includes this information:

“Similar weather conditions have occurred only five times - in 1919, 1920, 1936, 1938 and 1972 - since Russia started recording temperatures 130 years ago, said Valery Lukyanov, deputy head of Russia’s weather forecaster Roshydromet. This is the sixth year in history when late June and early July pose a real threat from the point of view of abnormal temperatures,” he told Reuters, adding that Moscow could set its own record if temperatures hit 37 degrees Celsius.”

Four of the five times occur prior to 1940! 

So why did ABC leave these pertinent facts out of their report?

We wonder why the ABC has relied on apparently unreliable third party reporting to cover this story when it has its own reporter, in its own Bureau office in Russia. Just what is ABC's Russia correspondent up to? Attending Rock concerts perhaps?


Here's ABCs Reply of the 6/9/2010:

Thank you for your email.

Your concerns of inaccuracy have been considered by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent from ABC program areas.

With regard to the statement in the ABC News Online story that “nearly 10 million hectares” of crops had been destroyed due to weather conditions, I would point out that the source you refer to - RIA Novostri -  has repeatedly reported this figure of 10 million hectares:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100803/160051126.html

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100721/159893787.html

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100723/159916359.html

http://en.rian.ru/business/20100802/160039288.html

The figure of 10 million hectares has also been widely reported by a range of media sources including Reuters, Bloomberg and Agence France-Presse.  Further, I note that the figure of 3.2 million hectares which you quote refers specifically to “several major Russian grain-growing regions”; not all crops lost.

With regard to the Voice of Russia report you refer to, and that a state of emergency had been declared in 14 states, with another 4 under consideration, I would point out that this story is dated 13 July; the ABC story from Reuters is dated 16 July.  As I hope you will appreciate, this was a developing story and facts – such as the number of regions declared in this state of emergency -  changed over time. 

Your comments regarding the Gulf Times story are noted.  It has been widely reported that the crops were destroyed – indeed, the Gulf Times report you refer to makes this clear in its introduction. 

Audience and Consumer Affairs can find no evidence to suggest that the report “Crops destroyed as Russia Swelters in Heatwave” has not met the ABC’s accuracy provisions.   For your reference, a copy of the ABC Code of Practice is available
 at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.

Yours sincerely
Audience & Consumer Affairs

Chinese study: Global cooling can lead to unrest and warfare

ABC provide coverage on a new study titled "Periodic climate cooling enhanced natural disasters and wars in China during AD 10–1900" published in the (Proceedings of the Royal Society B) that links cultural change with climate change in China. ABC report:
Zhang and colleagues speculate that periodic temperature shifts roughly every 160 or 320 years were related to natural climate changes, namely fluctuations in solar activity and in Earth's orbit and axial spin. The team say the findings demonstrate that climate change can lead to unrest and warfare. But the historical evidence they found points to global cooling, not to global warming, as the culprit.
Yet another story that indicates there's nothing unprecedented in the recent weather, and a sign perhaps that cracks are emerging ABC's Groupthink culture.
Here's the abstract (note that Proc. Royal Soc B is free for July so download a copy of the study):
Recent studies have linked climatic and social instabilities in ancient China; the underlying causal mechanisms have, however, often not been quantitatively assessed. Here, using historical records and palaeoclimatic reconstructions during AD 10–1900, we demonstrate that war frequency, price of rice, locust plague, drought frequency, flood frequency and temperature in China show two predominant periodic bands around 160 and 320 years where they interact significantly with each other. Temperature cooling shows direct positive association with the frequency of external aggression war to the Chinese dynasties mostly from the northern pastoral nomadic societies, and indirect positive association with the frequency of internal war within the Chinese dynasties through drought and locust plagues. The collapses of the agricultural dynasties of the Han, Tang, Song and Ming are more closely associated with low temperature. Our study suggests that food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts owing to rebellions within the dynasties or/and southward aggressions from northern pastoral nomadic societies in ancient China.

Surprise, Surprise drought conditions not unprecedented

COMMENT: We missed ABC's coverage of this climate study that reports that analysis of stalagmites from NSW’s Wombeyan Caves reveal "the past decade of drought in south-eastern Australia is not unusual in the context of a longer-term drying trend.” Results of the study were presented by  Dr Janece McDonald, a conjoint fellow at the University of Newcastle’s School of Environmental and Life Sciences, at the recent Australian Earth Sciences Convention held in the ACT.

Perhaps we would have noticed if ABC had given it some prominence on its "Best of ABC" site?

Managing bias at ABC 24 News

ABC's 24 hours news channel starts on July 22 and ABC have announced the presenters. Chris Uhlmann has been appointed as Political Editor, and we wish him all the best in the challenging role. A role made even more challenging given Mr Uhlmann's wife, Gai Brodtmann, was recently pre-selected by the ruling Australian Labour Party (ALP) for the federal seat of Canberra. This relationship represents a conflict of interest under section 4.4 of ABC's editorial policy (see notes below), and becomes more significant should Ms Brodtmann win and enter federal parliament.  In relation to the matter Mr Uhlmann has stated  “It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to raise and I have no problems with people raising it at all." So we add a few thoughts.
While Mr Uhlmann, appears to have avoided the worst of ABC's Groupthink culture, it's hard to see how Mr Uhlmann will be able to report on federal political affairs without the constant perception of bias tainting his reporting and commentary, particularly on any story or interview unfavourable to the Coalition. Likewise ALP supporters could argue unfavourable ALP reports are due to Mr Uhlmann seeking to ensure he is not seen as favouring the ALP. While we hope Mr Uhlmann will spend equal time scrutinising all sides of politics it might be the stories that go un-reported that are the most telling. Will Mr Uhlmann risk his relationship in reporting stories highly damaging to the ALP, or will these stories be left at the kitchen table with the breakfast leftovers?
It seems Mr Uhlmann will find it hard to win either way. In light of this perhaps an overseas posting or a "world affairs" brief for Mr Uhlmann would be a more appropriate way for ABC to manage the conflict of interest.
ABC continue to turn a blind eye to the close relationship between its current affairs presenters and the ALP (think Kerry O'Brien and Maxine McKew). On the face of comments from ABC's head of national programs for ABC News, Alan Sunderland, that he’s “very comfortable” with the relationship, it seems Auntie's eyes will probably remain covered in this instance.
ABC NEWS WATCH intends to keep an eye on the stories that go to air, and perhaps more importantly, on those that don't.

ABC's Editorial Policies provide the following guidance on Conflict of Interest.

4.4 Conflict of interest
4.4.1 There should be no conflict between the private interests of ABC staff and their official duties. The outside activities of staff, including financial, personal and political relationships, must not compromise the editorial integrity of ABC programs. Staff are expected to arrange their affairs in a manner that will prevent conflict of interest.
4.4.3 There are three areas to consider: potential, actual and perceived conflict of interest:
(a) Potential conflict of interest is, for example, where an employee has an interest in or association with an organisation (eg. being a director or substantial shareholder) or individual that could become a conflict of interest.
(b) Actual conflict of interest is, for example, where a staff member has an interest in or association with an organisation or individual to the point where their judgement may be affected; and they are asked to (or are in a position to) enter into negotiations with, or to interview, that individual or someone from that organisation.
(c) A perceived conflict of interest should not be confused with potential or actual conflict of interest, but it may need investigating to see if there is a potential or actual conflict behind the perception.
4.4.7 In deciding the appropriate course of action, consideration should be given to:
(a) whether the activity, association or interest would damage the editorial integrity of the program and ABC
(b) whether the activity, association or interest would damage the ability of the individual to do his or her job
(c) the editorial nature of the program

(d) the nature of the outside activity, association or interest
(e) any damage that could be done to the audience’s perception of the editorial integrity of the program if the outside activity, association or interest were discovered.
4.4.15 In assessing whether a staff member should cover, or continue to cover, a story in which he or she is or is likely to become a participant, the staff member and supervisors should consider factors including –
(a) the extent to which the essential elements of the story relate to the staff member’s own actions or inaction;
(b) the nature of the personal interests involved;
(c) the relationship between those personal interests and the organisation, individuals, issues and events required to be covered by the ABC, in particular the extent to which the staff member’s personal honor or reputation has or is likely to be pitted against the honor or reputation of other participants;
(d) whether disclosure of the personal interests would be sufficient in all the circumstances of the case;
(e) whether, if the staff member were to cover the story, audience members with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the conflict could reasonably doubt the fairness and accuracy of the story;
(f) whether, if the staff member stands aside, audience members will lose any element of substance from the ABC’s coverage which could not be provided through other means (for example, by having another journalist interview the staff member-participant in the same way as any other participant).