It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

# Romney: Climate change is real, man is contributing to it, and it’s time to do something about it

page: 8
10
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:37 PM

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: infinityorder

There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.

I'm not sure I'd be as smug if I were the one trying to give volumes in square inches.

Once again...trying to put it into context for the layman.

Cubic feet...would cross most folks eyes.

Though I agree when one dumbs things down too much it does lose a certain somthing.

Which is why I thought the road example was a decent way to explain it.

If you have a better method by all means be my guest.

I was actually referring to the fact that square inch is a measure of area not volume.

originally posted by: Jamie1

Can you please post what you believe is the most accurate climate model and indicate the weighting of human impact, solar impact, and insect impact on climate change?

Thank you.

I guess that seems like a real "gotcha" question?

The state of the art are the AOGCMs and in terms of sheer complexity they're further removed from what you're talking about than chess is from tic-tac-toe. Let me help you out: ES-DOC Comparator
edit on 2015-1-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:44 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Pounds per square inch is a measure of air pressure......I think that is where the poster was going with that.

The reality is as a result of our burning fossil fuels that release CO2 in the atmosphere, we have seen an increase of 280ppm to 400ppm(parts per million) as a result in just half a century. The trend shows increasing CO2.

Just do us all a favor and do a little research on radiative forcing and CO2.

The reason for the recent rise in CO2 concentrations is obvious.

Jamie posed that question, essentially an impossible question to answer, in an attempt to discredit the poster she was replying to. Disinfo 101......
edit on 23-1-2015 by jrod because:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:05 PM
It's all about control. They want a new tax to fund bigger government that doesn't hurt corporations. If they cared one big about the earth, they would force some real changes on how products are made. All the crap were sending to landfills and dumping in the ocean. They would fine companies like BP 10x the annual profits for causing Golf of Mexico oil spill. That would make any other company think really hard before putting environment at risk over greed.

All you climatephobes. How is taxing 300 million Americans going to do anything, when the biggest problems on this planet is in countries like China and India that have billions of people. You actually think bigger government is going to solve anything.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:14 PM
a reply to: jrod

I don't think that's where he was going with that at all:

So non science minded types( this would be you as you clearly showed) could do the math and understand.

There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what the middle part has to do with me? As to the last bit: I think that's giving the question far too much credit.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:15 PM

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Jamie1
I have never seen a climate change argument that actually addresses the model that defines the weighting of ANY factors, let alone all the factors.

X = human impact
Y = termite impact
Z = Sun's impact

Is it Climate Change = 1000Z + 25Y + 140X?

Or maybe 10,000,000Z + 0.5Y + 2X?

Does anybody have any idea? I mean with Google, this should be easy to find to support the argument that humans are seriously impacting the climate... if it were true.

What is this, a script? You basically ignored everything I wrote.

It's a relatively simple thing to grasp:
A) A greenhouse gas traps heat.
B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
C) We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
D) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat.

Are any of these false?

Do you have a scientific model that quantifies the impact of both the increased CO2, and the proportional impact of the sources of CO2?

Do you also have a model that shows the proportional impact of CO2 compared to other factors affecting temperature changes, e.g., solar activity, animal activity, etc?

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:18 PM

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: infinityorder

So you are trying to tell me the documented increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last half century is nothing but pseudo-science?

Can you explain what radiative forcing is?

These topics always end up like this.

Good on Mitt for taken a stance on this issue. It is just a shame that so many refuse to believe it.

It is an overall increase in energy because a gas, in this case, co2 has absorbed energy.....

What is your point?

I posted about this like 4 pages ago or something.

Oh wait was that it?..... And?

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: Jamie1

Do you know what radiative forcing is?

What about the 40%+ documented rise of CO2 concentration? In your mind is that just junk science?

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: jrod

I don't think that's where he was going with that at all:

So non science minded types( this would be you as you clearly showed) could do the math and understand.

There are around( slightly less at my last look) 400 square inches of co2 in every 1,000,000 square inches of atmosphere, averaged after all this does very depending.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what the middle part has to do with me? As to the last bit: I think that's giving the question far too much credit.

What is to misunderstand?

I already addressed this, I was trying to make it easy to understand for regular folks.

Most regular folks understand distance...the road example....most regular folks understand measures like square inches....

Many couldnt calculate cubic volume if you paid them money....so using such a measure is worthless for them to use to understand your point.....

If this is what you are going to try to hinge a rebuttal on.....I wouldn't.

I mean why even fixate on so silly a thing? You have made 3 posts about it now.....the horse is dead....stop beating it.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:26 PM
Talking about climate change and the effect humans are having on the planet is like telling kids Santa Claus isn't real.

They are too intellectually immature to understand..

edit on 23-1-2015 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:34 PM
a reply to: infinityorder

That was not directed at you....the radiative forcing thing.

These threads always attract those who wish to spread ignorance.

The smoking gun on climate change is the documented rise in CO2(and CH4) concentrations that correlate with mankind activity.

Yet there are still many who feel the need to bring out all the bells and whistles in an attempt to discredit this inconvenient fact. So many will try to tell us that we humans are too small and insignificant to change our planet's climate and ignore all the well documented evidence.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:35 PM

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Jamie1

Do you know what radiative forcing is?

What about the 40%+ documented rise of CO2 concentration? In your mind is that just junk science?

Jrod....buddy...I think anyone who understands enough about climate change to try and have an adult conversation about knows very well what it is.

What is your point?

Like that is an end all or something?

Common man, you got to have much more than that....bring it in let's talk about the issues you have with my stance...I am not shy....I like well informed debate.

I am at work so my responses might be slow at times, but I will be quick when I have the time.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:37 PM

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: neo96

Climataphobes only have one objective and that is written on the Georgia guide-stones, only those mouthpieces that continually spout this, "man is the cause of global warming" is a veiled cover for their ultimate, for culling, for killing and reducing the population by radical methods, no matter how quiet or subtle their rhetoric, more people need to do their homework and then reverberate this to the deaf, dumb and blind who will not see truth.
Climate change is being used as a cloaked method and talking point to change population thus enforce population control, thus social control, and unfortunately via stealth methods, such as disease, radiation, environmental contamination and food poisoning.

It is so refreshing to see someone speak truth. Star for you

Did you see the other thread where al gore admits to wanting us all in little cities with no cars?
They don't even try and hide it anymore.
edit on 1 23 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:41 PM

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: infinityorder

That was not directed at you....the radiative forcing thing.

These threads always attract those who wish to spread ignorance.

The smoking gun on climate change is the documented rise in CO2(and CH4) concentrations that correlate with mankind activity.

Yet there are still many who feel the need to bring out all the bells and whistles in an attempt to discredit this inconvenient fact. So many will try to tell us that we humans are too small and insignificant to change our planet's climate and ignore all the well documented evidence.

I disagree though....I believe many very intelligent folks are being misled.

I believe there is a concerted effort to give false data to accomplish an end.

That is open to much debate...money...control...power...something I can't even imagine.

The facts though are, the world has spent more time hotter than now than it has at this temperature, all those times were the times with the mist life and diversity in world history.

Inversely... The world has spent much time way colder than now as well, those times were bad all around for life on this world..

Would you agree with this?

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:45 PM
a reply to: infinityorder

This is more about the habitability of Earth in regards to our species, humankind.

It is obvious to anyone with any real world experience that we as a species are doing great harm to this planet that makes it much mess less habitable for our kind.

It is not just the CO2, our oceans are being polluted and overfished, our rain forests are being slashed and burned, ect..

My late grandfather told me he feels sorry for my generation because we inherited a world that is full of problems, problems that we created by our own greed and ignorance.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:46 PM

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: neo96

Climataphobes only have one objective and that is written on the Georgia guide-stones, only those mouthpieces that continually spout this, "man is the cause of global warming" is a veiled cover for their ultimate, for culling, for killing and reducing the population by radical methods, no matter how quiet or subtle their rhetoric, more people need to do their homework and then reverberate this to the deaf, dumb and blind who will not see truth.
Climate change is being used as a cloaked method and talking point to change population thus enforce population control, thus social control, and unfortunately via stealth methods, such as disease, radiation, environmental contamination and food poisoning.

It is so refreshing to see someone speak truth. Star for you

Did you see the other thread where al gore admits to wanting us all in little cities with no cars?
They don't even try and hide it anymore.

Do you guys actually not see the effect we are having on this planet?

You truly can't be that blind.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:48 PM

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: infinityorder

This is more about the habitability of Earth in regards to our species, humankind.

It is obvious to anyone with any real world experience that we as a species are doing great harm to this planet that makes it much mess less habitable for our kind.

It is not just the CO2, our oceans are being polluted and overfished, our rain forests are being slashed and burned, ect..

My late grandfather told me he feels sorry for my generation because we inherited a world that is full of problems, problems that we created by our own greed and ignorance.

Exactly..how can people in this day and age not see this?

We hunted some animals to extinction, we have made pesticides to eliminate annoyance that in the big picture serve a purpose, we have made lands uninhabitable, and we God knows what else we have done.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:05 PM

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Jamie1
I have never seen a climate change argument that actually addresses the model that defines the weighting of ANY factors, let alone all the factors.

X = human impact
Y = termite impact
Z = Sun's impact

Is it Climate Change = 1000Z + 25Y + 140X?

Or maybe 10,000,000Z + 0.5Y + 2X?

Does anybody have any idea? I mean with Google, this should be easy to find to support the argument that humans are seriously impacting the climate... if it were true.

What is this, a script? You basically ignored everything I wrote.

It's a relatively simple thing to grasp:
A) A greenhouse gas traps heat.
B) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
C) We are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
D) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat.

Are any of these false?

Do you have a scientific model that quantifies the impact of both the increased CO2, and the proportional impact of the sources of CO2?

Do you also have a model that shows the proportional impact of CO2 compared to other factors affecting temperature changes, e.g., solar activity, animal activity, etc?

Jamie since nobody else will and others seem to be misunderstanding your perfectly reasonable question I will address it.

You are asking for clarification, as to what climate modelling is being used to determine the doomporn predictions, so it can be fact checked by others to see if it has merit or is full of crap...correct?

I will assume this is correct...let continue.

There is not one.

Because they will not and gave not released one, will not and have not released the source code for their models so they be checked by an outsulide source.

In the end we wind up with their word on it.

That is not good enough scientifically for anyone with a brain.

I want to check their work, I want to crunch the numbers.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:15 PM
a reply to: infinityorder

It was an impossible question that was posed by Jamie1. There is no answer, she knows this. Because there is no answer, this is where high school debate tactics take over on this forum.

Debater 1 poses a question that Debater 2 can not answer, thus winning the debate.

There is no debate about human induced climate change. It is a reality.

Those who refuse to accept it are truly ignorant and blind.

Deny ignorance!

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:41 PM
a reply to: infinityorder

No. Her question doesn't make the least bit of sense. I already pointed her to a site that shows exactly what processes are modeled by dozens of AOGMCs. Here, I'll post it again: ES-DOC Comparator

There are a number of models for which the source and documentation are available as well as various raw and processed data sets.

Here's a list
and another
some more...

Perhaps some information explaining what climate models are and how they work would be useful?

Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modelling (PDF)
edit on 2015-1-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:49 PM
a reply to: infinityorder

Are you trying to tell me that the CO2 level jump, about 40% in the past half century, is just a coincidence? or bad data?

That data is there, the evidence is there. Humans as a species are changing this planet.

top topics

10