From the YouTube description:
The IPCC has produced a video on its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The first part on the Working Group I contribution to AR5 is now available. The other parts will be released with the successive approvals of the other two Working Group contributions and the Synthesis Report in the course of 2014.
Watch the video:
A few points.
- Immediately you can see this isn’t produced as a science video, but more in the style of a glossy sales pitch complete with CGI.
- It’s nine minutes of climate cliché bingo. I lost count of the number of crumbling blocks of ice, dried out lake beds, floods, and dark backlit water vapour shots, all delivered in a fast, almost “subliminal advertising” style. The only disappointment was the lack of stranded polar bears on ice floes. The commentary regurgitates all the usual mantras (Paul Matthews)
- There is only a very brief flash of the distinctly unscary temperature record at 2:05. If you blink you might miss it. (Paul Matthews)
- Climate models are by far not as perfect as it is suggested in the video – in fact most climate models cannot even reproduce the observed annual global mean temperature (h/t Eduardo Zorita)
- Many of the scientists on the video act almost as if they are prophets seeing the future, yet there is no mention of the wholesale failure of climate models to match observations. It the sort of sweep it under the rug hyping you expect from televangelists. I loved the scene where Reto Knutti sits behind a computer montor group boldly labeled “PROJECTIONS”, as if done specifically for the video.
- You are immediately hit with a video advertisement, something which is controlled from the poster’s YouTube account. Why would the IPCC need advertising revenue?
- The answer comes in the credits, the video was produced by “Snöball Films” for the IPCC. They bill themselves as “Snöball Film AS is Norway’s leading environment for the development and production of informational and educational film.”, so apparently the IPCC has made a deal to allow them to get ad revenue from YouTube. With 1500+ views so far, it doesn’t look like they’ll get much, OTOH its more view than serial whiner Collin Maessen has had in several months for his “No, Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped” video.
Hilary Ostrov reports in AR5 “The Movie” … tick-tick, boom-boom, doom-doom
Alex Cull has now produced “a transcript, where viewers can read and assess the text, without all the visuals or the soundtrack: https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131121_ip ”
Pierre Gosslin sums it up:
Nice piece of propaganda with all the vital elements. What stands out to me is the one-sidedness of the video, ignoring the inconvenient truths from Antarctica, failed models and the 15-year warming pause (see 2:05 mark above). And note how these scientists try to come across as prophets who can see centuries ahead. Just the overall air of know-it-all arrogance these scientists take on makes you want to puke on your keyboard.
In summary, any scientist believing the nonsense needs a doctor, or an education in science – beginning from first grade.
Very slick video with some really great scenes. The folks that put this together are quite talented.
A room full of “scientists” in a desperate, serious attempt to understand and control the climate, all staring intently at their laptops. What was on the screens didn’t show, so what they were studying is left up to the viewers’ imaginations. Airline schedules for the next high cost junket?
We had a climate scientist in a fully glassed high rise corner office with two video monitors on his desk. One is labeled “projections” so you just know he is getting the real skinny on the future of the climate.
I found very convincing IPCC lead climate scientists discussing their models and the serious implications derived from their climate models. Are those the same ones that don’t predict worth a hoot and are averaged to give us the real idea? The average of bad results is a good prediction?
The chartsmanship, as has been mentioned, was truly outstanding. And it looks like they showed CO2 lagging temperature but it looks a bit shifted than I recall.
Time frames for charts and statements shifted at almost a dizzying speed, but most were short, I seem to recall using 1980 as a base. They did mention highest CO2 in 800,000 years, without mentioning that CO2 for the last 800,000 years has been historically low. Why not 8,000,000 years as a comparison?
I found very convincing lead scientist telling me that they understood the climate drivers and that they could control the climate.
I was convinced that this was a very slick propaganda piece, but do agree with the statement that “we will have to adapt” to a changing climate. Doesn’t that that about sum up all of human history? We’re here because we adapted.
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.
In 2009, Australia’s Prime MInister, Tony Abbott, stated that the IPCC’s climate science (assessment) was crap. He was right seeing that the IPCC now seemingly agrees and therefore now relies on propaganda to prop up its mantra rather than science.
Meanwhile, Tony Abbott has today declared that he wants Australia’s carbon tax repealed before Christmas. He has put immense pressure on Labor and Green Senators to abide by the wishes of the majority of Australian voters and vote to repeal the most repugnant legislation ever introduced in Australia that has been economically damaging.
Re: Lubos Motl @ur momisugly 12:37 am
Thanks for the thumbs up/down comment
Thumbs down still losing 86 to 28
1. A Snöball’s chance in hell, and they made the most of it.
2. It’s good to get the catastrophists on the record as often and dramatically as possible: It raises the level of difficulty of their climb down.
3. AGW was scientists’ most dramatic power grab, ever, and the relationship between the public and science will never be the same, nor should it be.
“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.
RockyRoad says: November 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm
I’m glad we have Global Warming or we wouldn’t have any weather at all…. /sarc!
Now that you mention it: the Globe is Warming every day! And the Sun rises every day!
My layman guess would be, although correlation does not imply causation, that the SUN might be causing Weather, and consequently determine Climate! Eureka!
OMG, might climate scientists have missed this link? Might the sun be the driver of climate change? They seem to be rather obsessed with CO2, which follows temperature and thus follows climate change. They might be very very wrong!
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.
I was astonished at the nature of the video. This was a sales pitch to the policymakers for more resources and to reassure them that the scientists know best.
The ‘blink or you miss it’ temperature/ co2 chart is here at 2.05
If you want to see the co2 line portrayed against a real world temperature series here it is against the oldest in the world CET
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Intriguingly, since I wrote that article CET has declined further to an anomaly around 0.3C and as it declines will soon meet the co2 line going up.
I am sure that all of us here believe in radiative physics and that co2 doesn’t really cause cooling but equally we might conclude that the logarithmic effect might have come into play.
tonyb
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.
Who do you think will win in the end in this war of propaganda – the IPCC or Mother Nature? All my bets are on Mother Nature.
http://iceagenow.info/
The narrator sounds a lot like the one on the BASF We Create Chemistry commercial.
The IPCC are pushing a product, nothing more. It’s all about hype, and using slick psychological persuasion tactics to sway people’s emotions. Science doesn’t enter into it one bit. Oh yeah, I thumbed it down (come on, folks!).
Jimbo: Maybe the paper came in after the cut-off date. 🙂
Got a link to that?
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.
John West says:
November 24, 2013 at 6:40 am
“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).”
Not so. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to blackbodies and greybodies; gas molecules are neither. Gas molecules do not emit continuous spectra but only on their absorption/emission lines.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
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.
What the heck’s up with the x-axis at 1.59 anyway?
Other’s have already pointed out that, as we knew, the temperature leads the CO2 rise in this graph anyway, so it doesn’t show what they imply it does.
But there’s something weird about the zero position on the x-axis too.
@ur momisugly 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
Are these “prophets” the same ‘climate scientists’ who displayed their song-and-dance skills in a rap video back in 2011?
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.
And just for completeness, the S-B law does NOT apply to line spectra of gases; I seem to have the definition on my side.
“The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j^{\star}, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_Law
Scute ……
Done.
@TomR
Thanks very much for doing that!
Scute
replying to DirkH says:
November 24, 2013 at 8:56 am
Hmmmn.
So, if every second of every day, 30% of the inbound solar energy hits this N2+O2 “IR transparent” atmosphere and does [not] even get to the surface ….
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? Does not the “perfectly transparent N2 and O2 atmosphere” have to re-radiate all of this 30% in some way or another?
C02 might be causing the oceans to warm and the Arctic sea ice to melt but then again it might not.If I was doing a Sudoku puzzle and one of the numbers that I was thinking of putting in the grid might be correct but I also realised that it could be wrong then I would not put it in the grid until I was sure that there were no other possible numbers that could go in that position in the grid.The way that c02 is seen as the only cause of warming we realise is likely to be wrong therefore we should take our time in solving this puzzle and not risk getting it wrong.The issue has become political and might be true is seen as good enough to many of those pushing the global warming scare.