The IPCC goes for video bling (and CGI enhanced doom)

When there are snow storm as far south as Texas I doubt anyone in North America gives a crap about the IPCC and their blackmail schemes, let alone one more You Tube idiotic video amongst a world of other moronic videos on that site. That is unless the entire IPCC is twirking on the video – then it would be hilarious! I’d watch that.

They left comments on. Enjoy 😉

Did anyone notice on the ice core CO2 / temperature co-relation graph that CO2 (green line) lags Temperature (yellow line) ROFL
I guess technically they didn’t say it was the other way around.

“Climate Catastrophe!!”
Time for another read of Crichton’s “State of Fear.” It never goes out of date!

good video.

BBC Newshour: Julian Marshall begins with reference to Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda and goes to lengthy piece on the Typhoon as soon as he finishes with McGrath & the Warsaw talks. obviously, MSM intends to continue linking every weather event to CAGW, directly or by association.
BBC’s Matt McGrath says, in the documents, they want the numbers PRE-COOKED before Paris 2015. ( PRE-COOKED IS SO CAGW). Hedegaard plays the bossy schoolmarm, ordering delegates to go home, do their homework:
LISTEN TO FIRST SEVEN MINUTES:
AUDIO: 1:30: BBC: Newshour: UN Climate Change Talks
Julian Marshall: worth remembering the climate talks began with Typhoon Haiyan etc etc etc etc…
3:30: Connie Hedegaard: they have to go straight home, do their homework, decide their contributions, in good time for Paris…
6:09: McGrath to Julian Marshall: they are talking about having committments(??) from all countries…all the big countries(?)… nobody wants repeat of Copenhagen; they want it all PRE-COOKED in the terminology, they want it PRE-COOKED when they go to Paris, so they just sign the deal then.
Julian Marshall begins Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/newshour

Great glossary I borrowed: Sorry if this isn’t on topic Anthony. Forgive me.
CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified, understood, from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.

I’m glad we have Global Warming or we wouldn’t have any weather at all….
/sarc!

Came for monkeys shrieking at a cooling tower. Remain seriously put out that they still won’t pay homage to Stanley Kubrick.

James, just as an aside, I see that you have used the word ‘Warmista’. I thought that we all agreed that the earth was heating up.
The only point of contention was that warming was natural or that it was going to be good for us.

[This was intended as a comment on the YouTube version of the video. I couldn’t post it because Google are stopping me from commenting unless I share my life with them on Google+. It’s probably too long anyway but I thought I should post it at WUWT as well to show everyone what they’re up to with graph manipulation. If anyone wants to copy and paste it or sections of it to YouTube either under my name (but with no additions please) or under their own name (with any additions, fine) then be my guest. I am dead sick of these charlatans- Scute]
////////
Comment:
From Scute
For the scientists, video contributors and alarmist sycophants who have commented above: I’m surprised you have the gall to show your faces without reckoning on someone showing up to call you on your brazen manipulation of graph data. I’m that someone and here goes:
1) On the first graph, you shaved fully 0.1 degree C from the 1998 temperature- a full decade of warming- so as to enhance the slope and truncate the pause. That is nothing short of a lie.
2) You chose not to include the 2013 rebound in Arctic ice. Qin Dahe specifically states in the video that you are assessing data from “the last 6 years”. We have been paying you for “the last six years” and that presumably includes funding this video so we expect to see all your data. Why are you withholding it?
3) The ocean heat content graph stops in 2010. Argo data shows no rise in upper ocean temperature from 2003-2013. We’ve paid you for 6 years and you’ve given us 3 so that we would just see it creeping relentlessly up to ‘the present’ with no flatlining. What’s more, you left the plot floating way above the time axis to make it impossible to track the plot down to the relevant year and notice the trick. It has a great wadge of negative-scaled cumulative energy to match the positive for no reason other than to shove the plot away from the time axis. No one talks of -200 e22 j ocean heat content.
4) The sea-level rise graph stops in 2008, just one year after the 2007 AR4 report and five years short of the present. If the situation is so urgent, why are you using one sixth of your new data since 2007?
5) The RCP model projections, shamefully, still show rocketing temperatures between 1998 and 2013, just as you did in SPM.10. I know there is no time scale but the cumulative emissions are a good proxy for the time scale on the x axis in this period. On SPM.10 this is a 0.33 C hike during a 15-year known flatline- which is a 0.33 C lie. This is the same misleading graph but with the added confusion of having the decadal mean data plots stripped out. In SPM.10, these showed the heady slope upwards from 2000 to 2010 so at least we had an outside chance of catching you there. No chance here though- no one can readily discern where the pause should be- if they even know it exists. This graph shows modelled hindcasts/projections so why are you substituting an obvious 0.33 C error for the known instrumental record that shows zero rise in that period? No amount of protesting that this is the way you do your projections at the office will wash- you are potentially showing this to a billion plus people for all of 7 seconds. They all think that is the real temperature.
5) Two graphs have strange scaling: 1.6 units per decade and 1 unit for every 2.5 years. This makes it even harder to see the plots truncated in 2008 and 2010 which are already floating way above the axis.
6) You show two graphs for five seconds. No one can read the axes in that time. All they see is lines wriggling upwards. Moreover, you actually plot the graphs on screen and then cut away within two seconds for the ocean heat content graph and sea level graph. Tellingly, the cut is within one second of completing the sea ice graph with its glaring 2013 omission. Plotting on screen gives the impression that the graph is shown for longer.
I have spent the best part of an evening taking screen shots, blowing them up and measuring them with a set square and ruler. I resent the fact that I have to spend my valuable time catching out and calling to account the people who’s wages I pay and research I fund, along with a billion of the world’s citizens- and all because those very people we pay want to bamboozle us. It’s utterly shameful.

LOL,
Absolutely fantastic production values in the IPCC ’13 vid!
Had they spent even a fraction of the media cost on any positive resolution of ANY true ecological issue — they would have had a “high five” from me.
Instead, we get even more IPCC waste discussing the “nature” of an issue(s) rather than the science and any solution.
Complete BS as usual from the goofs at the IPCC.

No statistics for this video …

Patrick,
thanks for your explanation. I am not sure what you are saying about ‘basic fact’ that I am not understanding. I understand that CO2 is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere, I was just unsure of your notation. If you read your note, you will see what I mean. Your ~3% of 400ppm/v didn’t spell out that it was the rate of increase. So once again we are on the same page.
I have to ask you about your ‘so called, 97% of alarmist scientists’. I was under the impression the 97% figured referred to all climate scientists. Not just the alarmist ones, or are you intimating that nearly all climate scientists are alarmist?
If that was the case, it would be truly extraordinary. If nearly every scientist in a given discipline agreed with each other that things were dire, then that would make me sit up and take notice. If 97% of doctors told smoking would give me lung cancer, I would give up smoking. If 97% of meteorologists told me a storm was coming, I would not set sail in my boat.
Surely, not all climate scientists have come to an alarming conclusion. What about Spencer, Watts and those 30,000 scientists on the Oregon Petition, they are not alarmists are they?

Moderation on this site stinks, yet given the volume, logical. Human is as Human Does ; )

Patrick, ‘What it spells out is the IPCC hypothesis.’
I thought it was a fact, a measurable fact, but there you go, those sneaky scientists turning it into a hypothesis.

A slick bit of turd polishing, all predicated on the belief that a heat source can heat itself up some more, with its own energy, some of which has been on a brief return trip, to somewhere colder.
Just amazing.

I am alone in thinking that the global ice graph looks scarey?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Imagine for a moment that we were worried about global cooling, rather than warming, wouldn’t we be looking closely at the right-hand side of this graphic? To my layman’s eyes, it looks at odds with the past.

I refuse to watch the video as I suspect it will be a waste of my paid for bandwidth. Did they include the model projected greening of the biosphere? Since they use models to see into the future they may have seen the following paper. Maybe the paper came in after the cut-off date. 🙂

Abstract – 2013
A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation
“…….Using output from a 671-member ensemble of transient GENIE simulations, we build an emulator of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration change since the preindustrial period. We use this emulator to sample the 28-dimensional input parameter space. A Bayesian calibration of the emulator output suggests that the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%. It is important to note that we do not represent all of the possible contributing mechanisms to the terrestrial sink. The missing processes are subsumed into our calibration of CO2 fertilisation, which therefore represents the combined effect of CO2 fertilisation and additional missing processes……..”
doi:10.5194/bg-10-339-2013

We need to do a video, or maybe a movie. We could call it “The Day Before Yesterday”. Catchy, huh. It could show a warmer, naturally induced climate inreasing food supply and over-all human welfare. Then the bad warmistas get involved and cause devastation by reducing our carbon based energy supplies, outlawing nuclear and so on. Not happy with that, they sow SO2 into the atmosphere and bring on a premature glaciation in attempts to save their beachfront condos from the nonexistant rising of ocean levels.
What do you think? I should go to Hollywood, right, not that other place everyone keeps telling me to go?

Bill,
You’ve repeated the 97% figure a number of times. Is there a new study out, because Cooks’ study deriving these figures has been thoroughly debunked as very selective editing?
You stated that CO2 was the only GHG and the other 99.96% of the atmospheric gasses were not. I thought there were others with H2O being the GHG with the overriding affect. If this has changed I’d really like a reference so that I can petition USEPA to stop making me report all those other GHG’s.

“We have looked at all the evidence that tell us how the climate has changed in the past and presently”—. This opening statement is the first major untruth in this film. No unbiased or independent scientists can look at the past climate history and conclude that there is zero possibility of major pauses[ of 30 years or more] in global climate temperatures during the present century . Not to present this equal possibility or risk scenario that climate may actually remain unchanged or cool during the next 100 year period is a major flaw of IPCC science. Not only is a major pause in warming a real possibility but past climate history tells us that this could happen not once but possibly twice before this century is finished. So many of the doom and gloom pictures that they paint may turn out to be false and just pure fabrications . The real tragedy is that they are sidetracking world attention and energies away from preparing for possible severe winter cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, to spending money for a non existing threat. Many northern countries may find themselves totally unprepared in terms of energy supplies and infrastructure for the cold winters ahead. This deliberate or unexpected oversight will turnout to be the black swan of global warming science.
To me this film is purely a fund raising film in order to raise $100 billion yearly for UNITED NATIONS from the developing nations and sustain a 1-2 $ billion per day global warming business. It will not help to prevent climate change at all.

Bill says:
”And they should also point out the 99% of the atmosphere’s other gases have no greenhouse effect.”
Oh my! Bill, you’ve been misinformed. Not only are there other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, ozone, and methane in the atmosphere, but the greenhouse effect doesn’t depend on the presence of greenhouse gases. Even a 100% nitrogen atmosphere gaining heat through convection from a surface will radiate IR in proportion to its temperature (S-B Law) thus slowing the radiant cooling of the surface (i.e.: GHE). CO2 is a greenhouse gas and certainly contributes to the greenhouse effect, but it is a very small part and most of its contribution to the greenhouse effect is secured prior to reaching the minimum needed for plants to survive.

So, look at it this way, what is the long term return on poorly produced lies.
If George Soros and the commies keep pouring their gold and our gold down this lie based investment, seems that sooner than later the gold will dwindle as does the warming.
Facts count, lies kill, truth is life.

Wait, they show some computer graphics of Greenland and some meltwater rushing into the sea, and then this scientist guy says ” the amount of ice melt is six times as much as observed” – looking very concerned – Ahem…. when the models show six times as much ice melt as observed I agree one should be concerned about the models, and maybe euthanize them quicklly with an “rm /*” .
The true believers will not analyze the words anyway, but if you do analyze them, this is a terrible mockumentary by biased editing.
And the music is TERRIBLE.

Bill says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:53 pm
“James, just as an aside, I see that you have used the word ‘Warmista’. I thought that we all agreed that the earth was heating up.”
Hasn’t for one Santer. One Santer is equivalent to 17 years.

@ DirkH
“The Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to blackbodies and greybodies; gas molecules are neither.”
In a nitrogen atom that has gained energy perhaps through a collision electron(s) move to a higher energy state, as the electrons return to a lower energy state IR is emitted. The S-B Law still applies it’s just with GHG there’s the extra vibrational degrees of freedom to absorb and emit IR.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-9-1-195

John West says:
November 24, 2013 at 8:44 am
“In a nitrogen atom that has gained energy perhaps through a collision electron(s) move to a higher energy state, as the electrons return to a lower energy state IR is emitted. The S-B Law still applies it’s just with GHG there’s the extra vibrational degrees of freedom to absorb and emit IR.”
For all practical matters, O2 and N2 and other diatomic gas molecules are transparent to IR. So how could one make them emit IR? By heating them up enough until they emit on one of their weak and distantly spaced emission lines. Of course; when you heat up any gas enough it will become excited and emit photons. That’s trivial.
Yet, this is not a blackbody spectrum but a line spectrum.
There’s no point in arguing about it. You can listen and learn to use the right terms for the right phenomena. A pure N2 atmosphere would be transparent for IR. Blackbody radiation from the surface would on such a planet leave directly to space. IR radiation from the sun would hit the surface directly. Would it be warmer or colder than Earth? I don’t know. Half of all energy in the solar spectrum is IR; which currently cannot hit the Earth’s surface entirely unhindered, as our atmosphere is not transparent to all IR, due to the triatomic gases CO2 and H2O.

Scute ……
Done.

@ Martin Audley 24th November 2013 8:37 am:
“But there’s something weird about the zero position on the x-axis too.”
I think they shunted the ‘0’ over so that they could show the recent rise in CO2 to 395 ppm without the line sitting vertically over the y axis as it would if the 0 was at the foot of the y-axis.
I would say fair cop to that seeing as that’s a known value but it’s just about the only legitimate fudge in all 5 graphs (see my comment above re the disgraceful manipulation of the data on this graph and the other four including deciding to slash 0.1C off the 1998 temperature on this graph).

RACookPE1978 says:
November 24, 2013 at 9:30 am
“So, if every second of every day, 30% of the inbound solar energy hits this N2+O2 “IR transparent” atmosphere and does even get to the surface ….”
50%, not 30.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
which says:
“Sunlight in space at the top of Earth’s atmosphere at a power of 1366 watts/m2 is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light.”)
“Where does that 30% inbound energy go, and how is it accounted for in NASA/GISS/Mann’s simplified flat-plate flat-earth disk radiation model?”
Just search Earth’s radiative balance on google images and you get many diagrams.
Some of the IR must be absorbed and re-radiated by triatomic gases, half of the reradiated photons must go up to space again. Some of the IR must be absorbed by cloud droplets and build up charge separation, or heat them up, or evaporate molecules, and some blackbody radiation from the droplets results, part of which goes up to space, but on different frequencies than the absorbed IR – as the droplet is a blackbody.
” Does not the “perfectly transparent N2 and O2 atmosphere” have to re-radiate all of this 30% in some way or another?”
No. Just passes through it to the surface. The surface emits blackbody radiation that passes straight through the atmosphere directly to space again. Such a planet would have an atmosphere that is warmer than the surface at night. The planet could cool only through radiative cooling of the surface. The atmosphere would be a short-term thermal buffer.

DirkH says:
”For all practical matters, O2 and N2 and other diatomic gas molecules are transparent to IR. “
Agree.
”when you heat up any gas enough it will become excited and emit photons. That’s trivial.”
It’s not trivial, even if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there would still be a greenhouse effect. The amount of energy gained by the atmosphere through convection and evaporation/condensation exceeds the energy gained (net transfer) from IR emitted by the surface.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chap_11_Illustration_117.png
”Yet, this is not a blackbody spectrum but a line spectrum.”
So?
”There’s no point in arguing about it.”
True, but there’s no reason why we couldn’t discuss it.
” You can listen and learn to use the right terms for the right phenomena.”
There’s no reason to get nasty. I’m certainly open to learning. I’ve been doing it for almost half a century. I was merely trying to set the record straight from Bill’s comment awkwardly claiming that CO2 was solely responsible for the GHE.
”A pure N2 atmosphere would be transparent for IR.
True, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t emit IR. (see Quantum Mechanics)
”Blackbody radiation from the surface would on such a planet leave directly to space.”
True, but heat from convection wouldn’t.
”IR radiation from the sun would hit the surface directly. Would it be warmer or colder than Earth? I don’t know. Half of all energy in the solar spectrum is IR; which currently cannot hit the Earth’s surface entirely unhindered, as our atmosphere is not transparent to all IR, due to the triatomic gases CO2 and H2O.”
Agree, this hasn’t been adequately discussed IMO.
”the S-B law does NOT apply to line spectra of gases”
From the wiki page you linked:

”it follows from the law that the temperature of the Sun is 2.57 times greater than the temperature of the lamella, so Stefan got a value of 5430 °C or 5700 K (the modern value is 5778 K”

So, it applies to plasma but not gases?

I reported it as Spam (Mass advertising )
The nose-picking at 1:12 was pretty distasteful, but didn’t cross the reportable threshold. LOL

The three final points that the film concludes with need further comment.
“Warming is unequivocal.”
The past warming trend 0.75 C per century is real but the latest IPCC projected best estimate trend of 1.8-4 C or the likely trend of 0.3-6.4 C for the various scenarios are again just worst case projections with little chance of ever happening as the models on which these projections are based on have proven to be unreliable and wrong as they exaggerate the warming many fold .
“Human influence on climate is clear “
Yes, humans do influence weather but the impact is minor compared to natural variables. The claim by IPCC that it is extremely likely that humans caused more than half the global temperature increase since the 1950’s is plain speculation only in my opinion . .Natural climate variables like the oceans which have 60 -70 year cycle period and high solar levels were more likely the major cause of the warming between 1970 and 2000 . This will be apparent soon as we enter a period of global cooling but co2 levels are rising, completely opposite of what IPCC wrongly claims
“Continued greenhouse gas emissions causes further climate change……..”
The past 17 year climate pause has clearly shown that greenhouse gas levels are rising but the level of climate change in terms of global temperatures and most extreme events remains unchanged.
Reducing man made green house gas emissions will have very little impact on climate change but it will waste a lot of money which is more needed in other areas of our economy, like rebuilding after naturally caused disasters due to floods and winds . The real enemy is air pollution but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as falsely characterized by the EPA.

John West says:
November 24, 2013 at 10:11 am
“”when you heat up any gas enough it will become excited and emit photons. That’s trivial.”
It’s not trivial, even if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there would still be a greenhouse effect. The amount of energy gained by the atmosphere through convection and evaporation/condensation exceeds the energy gained (net transfer) from IR emitted by the surface. ”
In the case of a pure N2/O2 atmosphere no meaningful amounts of energy are radiatively transferred to and from the atmosphere. In this case, all energy transfer to and from the atmosphere would happen through conduction at the interface to the surface.
“From the wiki page you linked:
”it follows from the law that the temperature of the Sun is 2.57 times greater than the temperature of the lamella, so Stefan got a value of 5430 °C or 5700 K (the modern value is 5778 K”
So, it applies to plasma but not gases?”
The sun is not a cloud of plasma but liquid from the surface on down, and therefore has a blackbody spectrum. I don’t see any application of the S-B law to gases.