You Tube 5 minute film ideas - input please.

[Derek]

Hi All,
With this seemingly ever increasing madness I have, some refer to as "climate scepticism".
I feel the need to put matters straight, or at least to put the cause of my "madness" a little clearer.

How best to do this. ?

5 minute You Tube films covering various distinct topics ("bite size" if you like).
With clear charts, and simple narrative, illustrating points.
Preferably narrated in English and Spanish versions to reach a larger audience.

I have numerous (possible) working titles floating around in my head (it comes with the "madness"),
for instance,
1) the runaway bandwagon that is AGW,
(it has Left, Right, centre, and greed combined.)
2) what is global mean temperature ?
3) do we measure CO2 levels globally ?
4) are there any reliable proxies ?
etc, etc, etc.

However I would like to start off with a film titled
THE question for "Lukewarmers" and "true believers" of
man made global warming.
as has been begun to be discussed on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-709.html

I'll be back later with a rough plan for the first film.
At present it goes along the lines of,
We are told,
Human CO2 emissions > icreased atmospheric blanket > increased retained heat > global warming.
This relies upon an increasing "greenhouse effect" due to man's CO2 emissions causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
This increasing GHG effect is due to 1) the "known physics of CO2", and
2) the increase man causes by his actions in emitting CO2.
Point 2) will be examined in a future film in this series.

The "known physics of CO2" ("it") have so far only been measured in a closed, isolated system - laboratory sample - David Archibald example.
The atmosphere is an open, mixed system.
Do the closed sysytem measurements of "it" apply, as they are assumed to,
to the open, mixed system of the real atmosphere.?
There are two good lines of evidence to say "it" does not apply.
These are,
what chemists say - mass balance equatuions that work for the real atmosphere, and,
the simple fact O2 and N2 do not (effectively) radiate energy (heat), yet CO2 can and does.
Would these gases behave differently when mixed as compared to isolated examples, ? yes they would.

Therefore the question must be answered by "lukewarmers" and "true believers" of AGW alike,
please show how the closed system measurements apply to the real atmosphere.
(David Archibald's plot just assumes "it" does apply.)
Because without AGW being able to show / prove how "it" applies to the real atmosphere,
the greenhouse effect has no mechanism by which it can work,
so there is also no mechanism for man made global warming.

[Mike Davis]

Derek:
That is about the way I see it. regarding CO2!
In a true Green House environment the tropical regions would be larger and the Polar regions would be ice free because the so called blanket atmosphere would equalize the entire globe. Extreme weather is evidence that the Blanket effect is not happening. With less variation in temperatures the weather conditions would be milder..

Yoe asked about reliable proxies! Pollen of temperature restricted plants such as Dryas which prefer extreme cold. This lead to the name Younger Dryas:
http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~alice/explorat...tanize.htm
Oxygen isotopes seem to do a fair job. sediment in lakes and protected coves or swamp areas. Those have more to do with hydrological cycles and cold would restrict and provide a different pattern in the layers. Growth patterns for sea shelled creatures is also a fair indicator. Tree lines do not give a temperature , rather they give a minimum temperature for trees to grow. Also the length of time the trees grow in a certain location would be an indicator of how long the temperature was above the minimum.
I had plants that were border line for the region and would grow for years but one year the temperature dropped below the minimum for a few days and the plants had to be replaced. A friend lost trees that had been in the yard for ten years!

[Derek]

(06-04-2010 04:12 AM)Mike Davis Wrote:  Derek:
That is about the way I see it. regarding CO2!
In a true Green House environment....
the so called (and supposedly thickening) blanket (also supposedly caused by our CO2 emissions into the) atmosphere would equalize the entire globe.

Extreme weather is evidence that the Blanket effect is not happening. With less variation in temperatures the weather conditions would be milder..

Thanks Mike, this is a very good point I have not heard mentioned as well before.
I hope you dont mind my "additions" to your quote.
As a point in itself it stands, so as and when I start working on a text / plot sequence I will bare it in mind to see if it "slots in".
That said it is a different point to the one I want to make, and I believe my point is a far more fundamental / basic point.
Your point appears to me to be an "observation" that we do not have a greenhouse environment,
my point is that the whole basis of the greenhouse effect, and therefore AGW is made upon what I believe is a false assumption
few have questioned, or realised that they have accepted..BUT, accept or prove it they must in the first place.
So far "it" has not been shown, or proven, "it" has just been "accepted", knowingly, or unknowingly.
It is way over due the time to question the assumption.

In regard to proxies, doesn't your last sentence show my point regarding any proxy reliability. ?

[Mike Davis]

Derek:
Actually it does! I do not mind additions or your use. There is anecdotal evidence that some regions had milder weather during the RWP and MWP that have extreme weather events now.

[Derek]

I assume that means you mention your point to show there is a greenhouse effect. ?
Does milder weather mean less extreme weather events. ?

NB - Can I remind you of my request to you to expand on why David Archibald's plot can be dismissed.
I was hoping that you would give more than mere assertions, I'd like to use them in the "filmette",
but I need more than my "for discussion purposes" or what are merely "assertions".

I await your answer Mike, because I do not know if you are trying to "debate" which you know I dislike intensely,
because it is so negative in nature, if not also intent.
I also await your "justification" for yet again appearing to hijack / divert a thread of someone else's onto your preferred topic.
If that is your purpose, then you are merely belittleing other peoples efforts and contributions. Given the amount of work / effort others,
and I put into our contributions, I see such efforts by you not as merely misguided but to the detriment of the forum,
because it stifles discussion, and does not encourage others to contribute.
If however your posts are not intended to do as such, I apologise, but please put far more effort into how you phrase your posts, and
what you actually appear to be saying on many an occasion.

[Mike Davis]

I mentioned my points to show there is no real world evidence that a green house effect is happening on a global level.

You asked if my comment related to your doubts about proxies and I agreed. I think proxies are and can be useful as anecdotal data proving colder or warmer climate in individual regions. I do not think w can attach a number to the difference with any degree of accuracy. The error range is more than the effect being shown. A tree ring shows a range of temperatures during growing season but does not provide how long those temperatures lasted or what the temperature was during non growing seasons. Excess cold and excess warmth/ dry results in the same growth patterns. You only know you are seeing extreme weather events in trees.

If in this case I do not see CO2 as a Green House gas why would I think Archibald's graph has any value? If all the gasses that make up our atmosphere contribute to the atmospheric effect on the climate why would one want to attempt to seperate out one minor gas?

You asked for an opinion and I gave it! The entire biosphere needs to be taken into account when looking at weather and climate because the plants contribute to regional weather also in a micro climate kind of way because they allow water to evaporate to cool of the region and maintain a comfort zone just like we do when we sweat. There are more trees on my property so they do more to control this micro climate than I do!

I am not trying to debate or change anyone's view only offer my observations.
Actually I was under the impression that I was generally contributing to what you brought up!
I brought up the MWP and RWP as an example of milder weather without a CO2 influence and that warmer is better! I do not do the number crunching, just observe the "Big" picture and try to condense it into understandable terms for myself and then share that in conversations.

I might offer an opposing point of view for thought which is not meant to detract from anyone else's point of view. I also try to give examples and my mind tends to wander as I write so other things might be inserted as they come to mind.

[Derek]

Thank you Mike, you have made your contribution to this thread far clearer.
I repeat my sincere apologies to you Mike,
your posts are, as you explain above, positively intended.