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.
@ur momisugly 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).
Very disturbing! Obfuscation of facts -Arctic versus Antarctica- reveals the intentional deception at the heart of this propaganda. I would not want to be one of the scientists interviewed…
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: “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.”
Strictly yes. The SB law owes to the bump and grind of atoms in a solid. The spectra is just a snapshot of the distribution of energies in the collisions. And from there you can get funky with confounding things like diamonds and phonons. But given this, the collision of gas molecules carries the same consideration.
However, comma, when a line spectra is absorbed — IR in this case — then the frequency of the bond is higher. So on collision, and in the sum of all velocities, you’ve got faster race cars on the track. Some will certainly be lower speed collisions than otherwise for precisely this reason. And some will be higher. But otherwise you shouldn’t expect that the distribution will do anything differently than what gives rise to the Planck curve in general. Though, if you want to be a quantum purist about things and go full particulate, then line spectra applies to everything: That is, black body spectra is emitted as a continuous affiar, but the absorpta of various solids is still line spectra. The only thing changed is our toleration for statistical aggregates.
@RACookPE1978: Yes, it must get the 30% out, at some point, to return things to equilibrium. Though, of course, we don’t have any global equilibrium anywhere in reality. Radiation budget models that take GE as a foundational concept and then don’t deal with correctives for the actual non-GE conditions, and convection/conduction, will always have problems. And if those correctives are made, and everything is then stated as radiation equivalents, will present a possibly correct but wholly useless consideration. It’s a terminal trivia, and using it as an input gets you a GIGO condition. Same thing that occurs if you convert all alpha/beta/gamma radiation to banana equivalents of dosage and then try to state something intelligent about biological effects on the basis of bananas.
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:
So, it applies to plasma but not gases?
“The scientific evidence is stronger than ever: better and more observations, improved understanding of the climate system response.”
I think if Chinese scientists are convinced that the world’s economy needs to be transformed, the very least they could do is admit that the 30+ million deaths during the Great Leap were not in fact from natural disasters. They were the result of the Maoists transforming the Chinese economy. There is no discussion or admission of the starvation and deaths under Great Leap policies within China’s tightly controlled internet.
Instead, we have Chinese operatives such as Mae Wan Ho calling for an end to agriculture in the US as presently practiced (on behalf of the UN), and Chinese “journalists” recently being called for a mandatory three-month government training program for all journalists.
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 IPCC is a well-funded and still quite popular and charismatic propaganda machine. In fact it purposefully acts this way at the end of this video. It pronounces a message. Three of them.
So when did scientific research become a “message” to the world? Has this happened in our past? Yes. Frequently. And it nearly always ended in great harm.
Why do masses of people still listen to these kinds of messages (“we must do something about [those we don’t like]”, etc…)? Haven’t we learned from the past? Can we not still view captioned tapes of the past showing great throngs of people listening to charismatic leaders telling us that if something is not done it will be the ruin of us all? Can we not still read of the horrific results of such folly? Do we not still shield our eyes from the photographic horror of what we have wrought?
It seems bizarre to ask, but are we still capable of following such nonsense even though we know it can bring harm to others and send us eventually over the cliff as well? Yes. Only our toys and weapons have grown more advanced. We are still the same and still capable of group-think that can make us do what is wrong but think it right.
We don’t need to fear death from climate any more than we needed to fear our destruction at the hands of some ethnic group we learned to hate. But we most certainly need to fear the intent on the part of “messengers” who message to us that we must find a final “solution” to a trumped up impending catastrophe. If we sit silent, thinking some other entity will put a stop to it we will surely repeat the past.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
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.
Regarding the 97% of scientists….I attended (as a sceptic) one of gore’s “talks” on gw recently.
The speaker went on and on about cagw. When he showed the 97% of scientists gragh it was of
AGW not Cagw . No one noticed this excempt for for the writer of this comment. .JP
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.
I stand corrected. The end includes three messages AND a call to action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas “usage”. There is only one way to do that: reduce the population of CO2 exhalers. I am guessing that many of these delegates that contribute research, attend meetings and support the IPCC believe in such drastic measures. This includes world leaders. History repeats.
@PamelaGray
Finally, someone on this site who understands the real Agenda (21) and who shows no interest in milking the CO2 mouse. Are you married?
You’ve got that right brother! It was just the week before last we saw 80 some degrees F as a high here near Dallas, TX! Presently I’m seeing 32.7 on the digital gauge … there is a Winter Storm Warning in effect with the ‘promise’ of an inch of various precip forms over the next 24 – 36 hrs owing to a large Low Press. system moving eastward out of the west/southwest US.
.
How would that work, exactly, John West? (Cites, please?)
.
I’ve got ten bucks for the first person who parodies this propaganda piece and achieves 1,000 views on YouTube.
I do wish the video had included the mention of the other greenhouse gases that “we conclude require substantial and sustained reductions.”
The narrator voicing over the terrors of methane from cows…image: cow back end, milk, cheese, sour cream.
The narrator voicing over the nitrous oxide from rice, corn, wheat, and other basic necessities of life..image: cultivated fields, bread, pasta, rice, Golden Rice.
The narrator voicing over the horrors of pm from fireplaces…image, spy satellites zooming in on Alaskan homes in winter.
The narrator voicing over the horrors of Co2 from travel…image: mom loading the back of the pick up and hooking up an RV to go on vacation.
The narrator voicing over the depredations of refrigeration…image: home refrigerators opening and destroying the planet, air conditioners on homes and hospitals, refer trucks hauling chicken and lettuce to anywhere in the US.
This video is lacking a few important details about just how concerned the scientists really are about ghgs from human activity. The scientists have found ghgs in every motion.
Excepting, of course, you are dealing with elements that seem to behave in a manner more like little ‘tuning forks’ than an ‘amalgamated mass’ of atoms as in a ‘solid’ …
Recommended reading subject: IR Spectroscopy. Note the movement of ‘charges’ leading to EM (electromagnetic) wave emissions (and capable of absorption) at the various wavelengths owing to specific vibrational modes of different molecule combinations:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Modes
.
Your previous cite specifically specifies “dc discharges in flowing nitrogen at pressures from ¼ Torr to 10 Torr” (quite low pressure). Now comes the question, how much energy is transferred in a collision and can that be transferred to directly to a(n) electron(s) such that IR emission can take place …
Apparently the IR energy levels emitted by N2 are a very small fraction of that emitted from CO2 and H2O and employs/harnesses a mechanism that differs from the GHGs as well.
.
Scute says:
November 24, 2013 at 12:23 am
Thank you very much for that! Now we need a Lord Monckton to send them your reply and threaten to go to the high court in Britain and have them refuse to show this to British children without telling them of the errors.
@Zeke: “The narrator voicing over the terrors of methane from cows…image: cow back end, milk, cheese, sour cream.”
On the bright side, how wonderful modern life is that our prophets of doom busy themselves with cow farts.
@__Jim: “more like little ‘tuning forks’ than an ‘amalgamated mass’ of atoms as in a ‘solid’ …”
Unquestionably. And if they were hung at fixed points in space like Christmas tree ornaments we’d have nothing more to state on the matter. But they do fly about and play bumper cars with each other.
@ur momisugly DirkH
LOL, the last time I was in a physics class the Sun was a gas!
This paper seems to cover most of the issue: (I need to go through it more, but just breezing through I think it’s obvious you’re right.)
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-12.PDF
“The production of a continuous blackbody spectrum is incongruent with an origin from a low density source.”
So, I was wrong to connect S-B proportionality to IR emissions of gasses.(Not that they don’t emit electromagneticly from electron level changes but that this is not a continuous S-B emission.)
Thank you, if you hadn’t made that “the Sun is a liquid” comment I’d still be in 1980’s physics!
@ur momisugly Werner Brozneck 24th November 2013 1:57pm.
Werner
Ahem…believe it or not, I was just looking up Monckton’s email! Do you know it? I know some people here have his ear as he posts regularly at WUWT.
Anyway, no luck in finding it yet but I did find this little gem which was what prompted me to try and get hold of him. It’s a very recent interview on the back of the AR5 SPM release. I think the graphing fraud I highlighted above is exactly what he is talking about hauling people up in front of the judges for. Especially the slashing of the 1998 temperature- there is absolutely no excuse for that.
Lord Monckton on the Fraud of the 2013/2014 IPCC Report
Lord Monckton talks about the fraud issue from 13:10 and says we should treat this sort of thing like any other sort of fraud where there is some sort of position of responsibility to tell the truth when advising governments, especially when it affects the economy and especially when you are being remunerated for the research and advising.
I remember now, as you say, he filed in the British courts over the Al Gore film being shown in schools. I never knew the outcome- but he says in the video that he won and the education department had to issue an erratum, sent to all schools that screened it. So that’s what you are referring to and I was listening to him at the same time you were writing it!
Being forced to issue an erratum would have been major news but, of course, the BBC would never have dared report it.
Scute
Observations from viewing the IPCC sponsored video focused on AR5 Working Group I:
1. As science it is an awkward parody.
2. As parody it is unrealistically stilted.
3. As mythology it does not tell a meaningful story relating to our basic human condition.
4. As a fund raiser for more skepticallly focused research on natural climate behavior then it is pretty good.
John
Been single going on 9 years. And am too old for most men here. Plus, I like fishing and hunting just as much. So at the moment it is a neck and neck tie as to whether or not to go fishing or go out to dinner with a man. Given some of my dates I’ve had these last few years, fishing wins.
The IPCC Climate Conference…Poland? has received very little coverage, this video is sheer desperation. The Canadians, Japs and Aussies have already backed off CAGW and the Germans are building coal fired power stations again. Our Prime Minister Cameron wants rid of the “Green Crap” leaving Obama still wanting to save the world, code meaning the introduction of “Green Taxes”.
The Planet may well have warmed since the end of the last Ice Age but has been cooling since the Holocene Climatic Optimum….overall cooling 10,000 years.
The whole thing is a half baked farce and we now have Third World countries claiming compensation for weather events….
On behalf of all of us the only comment starts with the sixth letter of the alphabet and ends with the word off….!!!