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


By: - Climate DepotJuly 30, 2016 9:05 PM with 55 comments

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


  • Cool source of criticism, Accuweather is my primary smartphone weather app and secondary desktop weather app. 😉

    • Lynncly2

      <<o. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!fn95m:….,……

    • Dixiecnanney1

      <<is. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir130m:….,….

  • Jamie

    Cameron and Weaver are more qualified to demonstrate global warming on the planet Pandora.

  • Duke Silver

    It’s put on by Hollywood …. so never meant to be correct so much as believable.

  • Dano2

    The Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast also commented Cameron’s DNC climate film

    Compelling.

    Best,

    D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c71d8a4ddbd92237a5a09832af7f0afce2dedb25edc0911486768b7c54a8c2b.jpg

  • 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

  • Will Haas

    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.

    • Dano2

      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

      • Will Haas

        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.

        • Dano2

          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

          • Will Haas

            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.

          • Dano2

            Still not showing. A prolix not showing.

            Best,

            D

          • Immortal600

            Will, you gave a cogent response that the troll couldn’t refute. All he can do is give an unintelligent reply. He’s a loser.

          • Will Haas

            Apparently he does not understand nor wants to understand what I am talking about even though it is all a matter of science.

          • Immortal600

            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.

          • Dano2

            You were refuted on this rant under your other sockpuppet name. Yet here you are again, whining that reality doesn’t comport with your beliefs.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Antarctica’s ice is growing

            False. You just can’t give up the falsehood.

            Best,

            D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6a812c4fb4586d62eed1ece24c31f7bf12afea1cb2ca9b54f7519e052b80ccb.jpg

          • Immortal600

            What part of your pea-brain can’t grasp THIS article from NASA:

            http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • Dano2

            Show everyone your grasp of the paper by telling us when the data ended in that paper you were told to like so much.

            Then compare it to the chart I provided.

            Devastate Dano. Show those two years and bask in the glory and brag with everyone. You can even run away and yell from afar, as long as you give those two years. Just don’t run away and not give us those two years.

            Best,

            D

          • Immortal600

            Nope. You are too stupid to grasp the facts.hahahahahahaha

            According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

            Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it, clown.

          • Dano2

            No courage to show the two years, because it would reveal the level of your understanding.

            Shall I tell everyone those two years so everyone gets a clear picture of your ability to grasp the topic?

            Let us know what you choose.

            Best,

            D

          • Immortal600

            Dispute the quote, if you can, asswhole. I am getting tired of this moron troll who has nothing but disinformation. We are done for good but I’ll still post elsewhere and let the poor little puppy follow me around. LOL

          • Dano2

            Thanks for letting everyone know your level of understanding.

            The paper you were told to like so much has data that end in 2008.

            My chart is much newer than 2008. And is the synthesis of several studies, not just one.

            Here, I’ll include it again so everyone can see your level of understanding of the topic, with another chart of all the studies of the AIS:

            Best,

            D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6a812c4fb4586d62eed1ece24c31f7bf12afea1cb2ca9b54f7519e052b80ccb.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ebd8ab1ce9ca671a508032f60a30a77c0d3fbd982457a7464618029f6130de1f.png

          • Dano2

            I’ll expect another round of running away and then making false claims after this, surely.

            Best,

            D

          • Immortal600

            A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation
            that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the
            continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

            From a NASA article published Oct. 2015……..2015………2015

          • Dano2
          • Will Haas

            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.

          • Dano2

            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

          • Will Haas

            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.

          • Dano2

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

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            Good one! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • Will Haas

            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.

          • Dano2

            Precious.

            Best,

            D

          • TraceSkipper

            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

          • Dano2

            I’ll take those points on offer:

            o CO2 can’t matter because it cooled from 1940-1970 [10 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • Immortal600

            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.

          • Dano2

            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

          • Will Haas

            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.

          • Dano2

            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

          • Will Haas

            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

          • Dano2

            That’s not showing or backing your claims either.

            Everyone can tell.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            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

      • TraceSkipper

        No. CO2 does nothing.

        • Dano2

          Sure it does. Educate yourself.

          best,

          D

          • TraceSkipper

            No it doesnt. B/c you cant explain a cooling period when co2 was still rising. But youre an idiot.

            Best,

            T

          • Dano2

            Won’t educate yourself, got it.

            And I’ll take those points on offer:

            o CO2 can’t matter because it cooled from 1940-1970 [10 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • TraceSkipper

            It must be depressing for you when there are cold records being broken in August. But climate idiots dont want to hear about it. No one to exploit and lie to I guess.

          • Dano2

            Warmest year on record in 2014, 2015, and likely 2016 and you are pouting and whining about a couple of cold records.

            Aren’t you special?

            Best,

            D

  • Immortal600

    You can always count on the usual climate kook to show up and throw his disinformation into the mix.

    • Dano2

      Cojone-less commenters lack courage to address anyone to directly challenge them – likely because lacking information and education to mount effective argument.

      Best,

      D

      • Immortal600

        You get one response from me, asswhole.

        Do you think I could convince YOU of anything? I know I couldn’t, so why try? YOU can’t convince me of anything, other than you are a poor advocate of AGW, so WHY are you responding to me? WHY??

        You must be a desperate little man.

        • Dano2

          You have a long record of being wrong and me pointing it out. That’s why you run away and whine from afar to try and discredit – because I point out your basic errors.

          Best,

          D

          • Margaretmmims4

            <<kk. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ir43m:….,….

      • TraceSkipper

        You’re talking about James Cameron … arnt ya?

    • NNYer

      And they always arrive in their private jet!