Tuesday, December 1, 2020
Home Left Column Meteorologist slams DNC 'inaccurate' climate video: 'Same old lie...Recycled footage from two...

Meteorologist slams DNC ‘inaccurate’ climate video: ‘Same old lie…Recycled footage from two years ago’

-

Special to Climate Depot

By Certified Consulting Meteorologist Michael R. Smith – Senior Vice President and Chief Innovation Executive – AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions, Inc. 

Via: http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2016/07/climafornication-dnc-style.html

Climafornication” DNC-Style

I was amused to learn the Democratic National Convention was going to screen a climate movie this evening. I didn’t watch but was intrigued when Twitter lit up about “over the top” and how poorly the movie went over.

So, I went to the DNC web site but couldn’t find the movie. However, I did find it here. And, much to my surprise, most of the early part of tonight’s movie is recycled footage from two years ago! The original program ran on Showtime and it was called Years of Living Dangerously (from James Cameron). I wrote about it here. The title of my piece was an allusion to Showtime’s “Californication.”

Note the photo of Arnold from April, 2014, and the screen capture below from tonight’s movie.

The entire Dangerously video had an intentional sepia tint to make it look “drier” and conditions worse than they were. I lightened up the screen capture above so you can see the match with Dangerously’s advertisement (at top).
Tonight’s movie repeated the same sepia-tinted west Texas footage about the supposed terrible drought in that region (see below), presented as current climate conditions. A farmer is on camera talking about “last year” as if it were 2015 when, in reality, it was 2013.
The only problem with that segment is the drought in west Texas broke long ago. Currently, no part of Texas is experiencing drought conditions.
NOAA’s official current drought index. Browns = drought.
No browns in any of Texas.

Apparently, the climate has been so benign that they couldn’t find new more disasters to film since tornadoes are way down,  there have been zero major hurricanes in the U.S. and the drought in West Texas ended. The same old footage of Hurricane Sandy has gotten tiresome.

The DNC movie repeated the same old lie that the rise in sea level the last 100 years is “largely due to climate change” when the rate of sea level rise hasn’t changed since the end of the Little Ice Age.

I had to laugh at noted climate scientist Jack Black making a prediction about when Miami would be under water.

So, the DMC got to see old footage, inaccurately presented. Typical of Big Climate.

I hope the DNC knows what they were being billed for.

#

Related Links: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger takes on climate change in James Cameron’s DNC video

‘Avatar’ dir. James Cameron creates global warming pro-Hillary infomercial

Flashback 2010: From King of the World to Chicken of the Sea: James Cameron challenges Morano, climate skeptics to debate and then bails out at last minute

55 COMMENTS

  1. July 29, 2016 CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE NEW REEFER MADNESS

    Hollywood sci-fi filmmakers tapped to dramatize fictional climate change to scare everybody into voting for climate totalitarians. So-called “climate change” — previously known as “global warming” but renamed after the data revealed no warming trend at all — is entirely rooted in false mythologies, official narratives and creative storytelling.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/054823_climate_change_reefer_madness_propaganda_films.html#ixzz4G1Y0iy7A

  2. They never get to the heart of the matter. The work that has been done with models and not just the IPCC models shows that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the environmental lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The lapse rate is a measure of the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere. The lapse rate is a function of the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect which is caused by the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. Without the radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture falls apart. There is plenty of scientific reason to believe that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    • The work that has been done with models and not just the IPCC models shows that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans

      You made that up. You can’t show it is true.

      Best,

      D

      • I did not make it up. It is true. In part to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC sponsored development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of climate models is evidence that a lot of guess work was involved. The plethora of models predicted a wide range of values for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all predicted global warming that has not happened. If these models are evidence of anything it is that there must be something wrong with the AGW conjecture. Others, not sponsored by the IPCC, have generated models that do adequately predict today’s global temperatures. These models do not depend on any CO2 related effects but rather how the sun and the oceans affect climate.

        • That’s not showing.

          And this is utterly wrong: They have all predicted global warming that has not happened.

          I suspect you are dutifully parroting the words of someone who appealed to your feelings and duped you.

          Best,

          D

          • No! No!. It is utterly right. The IPCC’s models all failed to predict the pause. I myself think that Man’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil furls just as quickly as possible is not a very good idea. I would have liked to add AGW as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes. For example, a very important part of the AGW conjecture is that the radiant greenhouse effect caused by LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases accounts for the Earth’s surface being 33 degrees warmer then it would otherwise be because of the insulating characteristics of the atmosphere. Firstly in a real greenhouse there is no radiant greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse effect stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective and not a radiant greenhouse effect and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. So to with the Earth. The Earth’s surface is kept 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. The Earth’s convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by so called greenhouse gases. Without the radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is nothing. That is why there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning behind the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero.

                • He is an AGW troll who claims to be highly educated and published on the subject. You can’t tell that by what he posts. Most of what he posts is inane, childish garbage. Occasionally he’ll throw out lists of reading material, none that HE wrote, and none that can show how CO2 drives climate change. When called on it all he can do is respond with another childish comment. Antarctica’s ice is growing and I linked an article from NASA of all places claiming just that! He refuses to accept an organization that HE often cites. He is one of those true believers that will never admit that he is wrong or could be wrong. That is why I won’t respond to his garbage. However he has the need to respond to me. It is humorous. Bottom line is that he is a sad little man with the need for recognition from others. It is not happening here.

                  • Thank you for your efforts but I am not really interested in him but rather want to discuss the applicable science. My claim is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and to date no one has provided any.

                    • My claim is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and to date no one has provided any.

                      Two centuries of physics and chemistry bro:

                      Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

                      Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

                      Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

                      Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

                      Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:

                      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
                      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter10.pdf
                      http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:

                      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

                      You have nothing to refute the well-established science. Nada.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • None of your references includes any real evidence that CO2 actually affects climate. They just have reason to believe that it might. If there were any real evidence, then the IPCC should be able to use such evidence to compute a single value for the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range of values for what they considered the most likely values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same range of values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has failed to find any evidence that would allow them to refine their estimate one iota. If you have any real evidence them please present and explain it yourself. I have already refuted the AGW conjecture. The convective greenhouse effect observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres is established science. The convective greenhouse effect on Earth fully accounts for the atmosphere’s insulating characteristics and leaves no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect provided for by greenhouse gases.

                    • None of your references includes any real evidence that CO2 actually affects climate.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      Good one! I LOLzed!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Well if any of them do please present that information yourself. You present your references as if they were some sort of AGW scripture and have to be believed because they are the word of God.

                    • Why did temperatures fall after world war 2 till the 1970s when scientist were predicting a global cooling. Gosh you guys are idiots.

                      Best,

                      T

                    • You are correct, of course. No one can demonstrate how CO2 drives climate change. It is one tiny variable of many in a complex chaotic system that is not really understood real well.

                • You can’t show.

                  Typing isn’t showing. You have to show the equations and models of the NewScience and NewPhysics that overturn ~2 centuries of classical physics and support your typing spasm upthread.

                  You can’t do that. You have nothing to back the text in your typing spasm.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • What I am telling you is not new science and the details are out there on the Internet and not to difficult to find. The convective greenhouse effect starts with the work of James Clerk Maxwell in his theory of Heat that was published in the late 19th century. He is the same Maxwell that gave us Maxwell’s Equations. The convective greenhouse effect is evident in all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The lapse rate is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient. It is a measure of the insulation properties of the atmosphere. If CO2 did actually cause warming because of its LWIR absorption bands then there should be evidence that an increase in CO2 has caused the lapse rate to increase but that has not happened. The initial calculations that predicted that more CO2 would cause warming depended on the lapse rate and assumed that with a doubling of CO2, the dry lapse rate would remain constant. But adding that much CO2 to the atmosphere causes a change in the heat capacity of the atmosphere which in turn causes a lowering of the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. When one includes the effect of CO2 on the dry lapse rate, the calculated climate sensitivity of CO2 is lowered by a factor of 20. So the Planck effect climate sensitivity of CO2 is not 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 but rather .o6 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. Then there is the issue of feedbacks which have to be negative for our climate to have been as stable as it has over at least the past 500 billion years. The reality is that there is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.

                    • Your claims, your burden of proof. The rules have not changed in 2300 years.

                      You have not met your burden of proof for any of your claims – prolix Gish gallops notwithstanding.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • I am telling you like it is and am not trying to prove anything. In climate science there are no proofs because there are just to many variables and one cannot run definitive experiments. I have stated that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and you have not come up with any counter examples. AGW is a conjecture full of holes

              • A cogent response would be to show models that support what Haas claimed. Poor Haas didn’t do that.

                But the basics of English and Rhetoric isn’t your strong suit, clearly. Hence the ululating and garment-rending and whining from afar.

                Standard fare from this one.

                Best,

                D

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go)

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/antarctica-might-go-green-say-scientists-only-2km-of-ice-and-50c-of-warming-to-go/ More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...