You couldn’t be more right, they are very easy facts to confirm. But, I am not going to play footsie with you. Stop sitting on your brain and use the damn thing. You got the brain power use it. If you need to play a game, why don’t you go shoot some baskets, it will be much better for you. Please review your contributions to the posts so far. And then go back to post #32 and answer the basic questions and get involved in the conversation at the level you are really adept at. I would like nothing better that to have your intellectual input, so stop giving me trash, I am not your bitch.Money was pouring into the education business and grants were being passed out for the stupidest ideas you ever heard of as long as it backed Global Warming. But then we had a bump in the road. A couple of America’s big business guys for some stupid reason got all patriotic, didn’t care about the money and told the congressmen that they were handing out bags of money on a theory that may not be correct and in the overall picture of things, it may not be in America’s best interest. That’s when America proved that higher education does not always include common sense.These should be easy facts to confirm and provide evidence for. Please do so. Or shut up.
You couldn’t be more right, they are very easy facts to confirm. But, I am not going to play footsie with you. Stop sitting on your brain and use the damn thing. You got the brain power use it. If you need to play a game, why don’t you go shoot some baskets, it will be much better for you. Please review your contributions to the posts so far. And then go back to post #32 and answer the basic questions and get involved in the conversation at the level you are really adept at. I would like nothing better that to have your intellectual input, so stop giving me trash, I am not your bitch. I guess the gloves have come off. I told you why I'm not going answer your questions in my first post for this thread. You're being unreasonable. You made the claim. Burden of proof, all over on you there. I would have to prove a negative. What should I do? Link you to the entire congressional record for 1990's and say that I couldn't find any big business guys testifying about bags of money for global warming scientists? Anyway, the first thing you don't seem to get is that if someone proposed an experiment and said "this experiment will support the theory that human activity contributes to global warming", then they would not get funding. They wouldn't because they obviously don't understand science. Scientists propose projects like, "We're going to drill ice cores and examine the gases and determine temperatures going back as far as we can. That data will help us understand the climate where live and breath and what affects it." They then use the data to determine what it means. Oh, and I didn't ask before. When you see a graph like the one on the Chasing Ice website, what goes through your head?Money was pouring into the education business and grants were being passed out for the stupidest ideas you ever heard of as long as it backed Global Warming. But then we had a bump in the road. A couple of America’s big business guys for some stupid reason got all patriotic, didn’t care about the money and told the congressmen that they were handing out bags of money on a theory that may not be correct and in the overall picture of things, it may not be in America’s best interest. That’s when America proved that higher education does not always include common sense.These should be easy facts to confirm and provide evidence for. Please do so. Or shut up.
I guess the gloves have come off. I told you why I'm not going answer your questions in my first post for this thread. You're being unreasonable. You made the claim. Burden of proof, all over on you there. I would have to prove a negative. What should I do? Link you to the entire congressional record for 1990's and say that I couldn't find any big business guys testifying about bags of money for global warming scientists? Anyway, the first thing you don't seem to get is that if someone proposed an experiment and said "this experiment will support the theory that human activity contributes to global warming", then they would not get funding. They wouldn't because they obviously don't understand science. Scientists propose projects like, "We're going to drill ice cores and examine the gases and determine temperatures going back as far as we can. That data will help us understand the climate where live and breath and what affects it." They then use the data to determine what it means. Oh, and I didn't ask before. When you see a graph like the one on the Chasing Ice website, what goes through your head?The rules of the world according to Lausten. I don’t play by your rules Lausten. And as far as grant funding, I have a friend who planned his honeymoon in Europe, then got grants to pay for the whole trip. It depends a lot on where you are at on the education ladder as to who gets the grants. As far as the chart on the Chasing Ice website, I remember looking a half of a chart, the temperature numbers were missing. That’s why I said they were twisting the data. Then post #32. I said the article was satire, that’s because the article itself said it was satire. So what are your views Lausten? Would you say that this climate change is caused by man’s carbon in the atmosphere or this climate change is part of the earth’s natural cycle that happens once every 100,000 years? Or would you say it is part of both? And if it is part of both, how much can one contribute to the natural cycle and how much to mankind’s adding of greenhouse gases? What is your problem in this question? Do you agree that modern man has been on earth for the last 200,000 years? If so, then mankind has survived the last two natural cycle peaks. Some scientists have even claimed that the last climate peaks have caused some extinction of species. And this has all happen without mankind’s help. A simple yes, no question. Now the big question is, if things get this bad at the peak of the natural cycle, then mankind’s adding to earth’s greenhouse gases can’t be good in any view. Wouldn’t you agree? Another simple yes/no question. So just how much worst is it going to get with the extra CO2? Do you agree that’s the big question on everyone’s mind? Another simple yes/no question. What if all this money pumped into Global Warming projects does very little good because earth’s natural cycles will cause the tsunamis and floods and create the hellhole The New Yorker is quoting anyway? Should we first not understand the scope of what we are dealing with, then establish the battle plan and spend our resources wisely? Not a tough question. These question were not tough questions and designed to better understand your stance and incorporate you into the conversation.
I meant the chart where the amount of carbon in the atmosphere suddenly goes up over 300 ppm. Temperatures can be found elsewhere. They don’t invalidate this data. You can find that chart anywhere, or go back and look at the one I linked.
Answers
I accept the latest IPCC report.
That also answers the next 4 questions.
Yes.
Yes.
Pretty sure things are going to get worse of us. It’s not really a question of “if" but “when".
What if?
Duh.
Those questions don’t address the bad science you’ve been talking about for two days.
And, that we are here is mostly luck. Just because we have survived variations in the past, doesn’t mean we’ll survive this one]
I meant the chart where the amount of carbon in the atmosphere suddenly goes up over 300 ppm. Temperatures can be found elsewhere. They don’t invalidate this data. You can find that chart anywhere, or go back and look at the one I linked.
OK, we all understand that there is tons of carbon being dumped in to the atmosphere daily.
So, what does that really mean?
We all agree that it means the earth’s warming blanket is getting thicker. And that there is more greenhouse gases to help create more heat.
Now we come to the missing data, how much heat does the carbon create?
Well who in the hell knows? There is this group of scientist who claimed they knew and made projections of the temperature rise this carbon would produce. And we are still looking for this missing heat today, are we not?
So thinking scientifically, can we use the chart for anything other than the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere?
My view is that there is 230 trillion horsepower of energy hitting the earth and controlling the climate, it is very easy to grab a few horsepower from the sun and attribute it to the carbon. I am not saying that the carbon is not contributing to the heating. I am just saying before we write the numbers in stone we better be sure. And the lost heat in the last ten years adds weight to the fact that those numbers may be off.
I have no choice but to invalidate the chart.
Answers
I accept the latest IPCC report.
Ok, IPCC did not separate how much of the warming is caused by the natural cycle and how much is added by the AGW. Right now this would have to be a personal guess. There is no right or wrong answer.
That also answers the next 4 questions.
Yes. We agree.
Yes. We agree.
Pretty sure things are going to get worse of us. It’s not really a question of “if" but “when". Yea, the general consensus.
What if? Duh. Then if you think that we should first understand the scope of the problem, we better make sure that we have the carbon data down correctly. And that’s where there seems to be a disagreement with the scientists.
Those questions don’t address the bad science you’ve been talking about for two days.
It does if the carbon data is not correct. Why do you think the temperature is left off the carbon charts?
It does if the carbon data is not correct. Why do you think the temperature is left off the carbon charts?Because it's not. It's left off the particular chart that I linked because it is a chart about carbon. Other charts show temperature. Sometimes those two things are shown together. You know this, so why are you bringing up stupid questions like this? Oh right, because you don't have a real argument.
It does if the carbon data is not correct. Why do you think the temperature is left off the carbon charts?Because it's not. It's left off the particular chart that I linked because it is a chart about carbon. Other charts show temperature. Sometimes those two things are shown together. You know this, so why are you bringing up stupid questions like this? Oh right, because you don't have a real argument. What do you get from a chart that shows just carbon increase? The new IPCC report is due out in a month or so. One of the main questions being ask by China for the IPCC to answer is: [What is the sensitivity of global average temperature to the concentration of carbon dioxide?] China is asking the same question. So it must not be as simple as viewing a temperature chart. We know the report is going to show mankind warming the earth. But it would be nice to know how the carbon creates temperature rise. And how much is due to carbon and how much is due to the natural climate cycle.
Because it's not. It's left off the particular chart that I linked because it is a chart about carbon. Other charts show temperature. Sometimes those two things are shown together. You know this, so why are you bringing up stupid questions like this? Oh right, because you don't have a real argument.In my lifetime I have been subjected by the media to various weather predictions by top experts in the colleges and trades of the coming of the new Ice Age and to the heat of the Global Warming. I have been told so many times that the sky is falling. That’s why now I say “prove it." That is why a chart that just shows the increase of carbon in the atmosphere does not set off the alarms with me. It is cause without gauged affect. Cause without gauged affect is bad science and at best trash. Today there is just about every credited scientist, which number in the high hundreds, agreeing that carbon is and acts as a greenhouse gas. And we all agree that greenhouse gases help form and create the warming blanket surrounding the earth. There are three big questions about carbon as a greenhouse gas. First, how much heat does it create as a greenhouse gas? That question was answered ten years back to shut up and stop the carbon debate on Global Warming so the carbon credit laws could be passed. But those numbers proved off, not by a little but by almost the entire amount. And today we have a bunch of embarrassed scientists running around looking for the missing heat. The predictions were so bad that the whole Global Warming stance had to be changed to Climate Change and AGW. Even the IPCC saw the writing on the wall and cut its predictions of upcoming future warming in half. As a bump on a log, sitting back watching what was happening. I had to ask myself, why would the scientists do such a stupid action as to make those predictions based upon unproven data? Had the scientific world gone mad! But, then you got to give them credit for what they did accomplish. Which was helping form the creation of a taxing structure that will move the highly sought after U.S. dollar from the American consumers and taxpayers to fund regulating departments in the U.S.A. and send vast amounts of U.S. wealth overseas to fund world regulating departments. And that in itself was a major accomplishment. It’s just sad that hundreds of our top scientists had to use unproven data and bad science to pick pocket the American public. Is that the new American way? The IPCC report is going to be out in a month or so. And it is going to try and smooth things over for the scientists by screaming the sky is falling. The new numbers leaked out are said to be 3.7 degrees of warming in the next 50 years if carbon reduction measures are not taken and 3.7 degrees in the next 100 years if carbon reduction measures are taken. Any way you look at it, the IPCC is saying the sky is falling. And the report is said to contain a lot of photos showing how bad the weather on earth is becoming for the shock effect. And they are right. Those number, even though they are only half the amount these same top world scientists were agreeing on a decade ago, they are still really bad for the earth. And they can’t be wrong, because they have over 800 hundred of the top scientists from around the world agreeing on those numbers. Now, China, as a member, had ask the IPCC several questions about carbon and global warming. And it will be interesting to see if the IPCC tries to answer those questions. The last IPCC report said that even with the carbon regulations that do to human activity the carbon greenhouse gases were expected to double. And China wanted that put into a cause and effect chart by asking – “defined as the temperature rise associated with a doubling of CO2." Thank you China. If the IPCC answers China’s question, they will have to show two sets of data. One, the warming caused by the natural climate cycle. And two the warming affect created by the CO2 greenhouse gases. Lausten, these are the items you say are in charts already. I just have to put them together. Well let’s see if 800 of the world’s top scientists are willing to put them together for China in the upcoming report. The chart should have a timeline that will extend out at least 100 years. There should be a line showing the Natural Climate Cycle with temperature rise in degrees. A line showing the expected carbon increase without carbon reduction with a matching line relating to temperature rise in degrees. And a line showing carbon increases with expected regulated carbon reduction with a matching line in temperature rise in degrees. A note should be said about the leaked report that the 3.7 degrees increase is based upon a computer model. So it will be really interesting to see if the data has been agreed upon by several matching computer models or just one. Different computer models NOT coming up with the same numbers has been a real major problem for the scientists. I will not go into the other two big questions about carbon greenhouse gases in this post. Because the post is to damn long. And the reason for the long post is to get past a point and on to the next points without having to go over and over the same issues.
In my lifetime I have been subjected by the media to various weather predictions by top experts in the colleges and trades of the coming of the new Ice Age and to the heat of the Global Warming. I have been told so many times that the sky is falling. That’s why now I say “prove it."Speaking of "proving it" - how about producing some of these studies/reports making these "predictions" - {Incidentally, if you were having a good faith conversation, you would be calling them "projections" but then reducing things with juvenile emotional debate tricks is the key to contrarianism, isn't it} Where are these studies you claim exist. Can we look at them objectively. Excuse me for being blunt, and testy, but you are lying Mike. Confusing the shrill cries of media stories with the nuanced details of scientist's studies and reports is the way of the denialist and useless contrarianist. All in order to stay as far away from the substance of the issue. The reason I get upset with this idiotic "they predicted an ice age" meme is that I remember, and have doubled checked in recent years, that the serious scientific reports and even the media retelling, may have started with the observed cooling and aerosols impact and the amounts we were putting into the air, and that continuing on this trend would cause problems (incidentally what part of that wasn't true, please explain.) etc., etc. But then there was always that mention and acknowledgement of the other atmospheric thing going on. Something counter balancing this cooling, namely greenhouse gases that act to insulate our planet. With the same global cooling projections, came projections that increasing GHGs could well overwhelm the apparent cooling of Earth. Which is what happened. Were were the scientists wrong. Bet you can't come up with anything specific. Just these urban legends the Republican/libertarian "think tanks" keep feeding you. Why never acknowledge such well known and understood details??? Why don't Republican/libertarians ever think about the substance of the story, or include an appreciation that those cooling particles have been radically reduced while the insulating greenhouse gases have sky-rockets. NO, instead, folks like Mike think, we need to understand the exact math, down to the tee, before we can start believing what we know. The self destructive insanity of that amazes me, oh the power of comfort and self-contentment. What will exactitude buy us Mike? Proofs are for math - not Earth sciences [typo ;-(]
PS. Mike seems to me you go to Anthony Watts for a lot of your information.
Perhaps this might interest you:
Anthony Watts attacks National Geographic Magazine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-attacks-national.html Anthony Watts about that Sea Level Rise Anthony Watts about those Glaciers on Kilimanjaro Anthony Watts about those Himalayan Glaciers
Hey check it out, more information about what’s happening within our oceans, hot off the press
Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots? Posted on 5 September 2014 by Rob Painting http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2647Key Points: Even though the ocean has warmed strongly, global 'surface' warming in the 21st century has been slower than previous decades. One of the prime suspects for this has been an increase in trade winds which help to mix heat into the subsurface ocean - part of a natural oscillation known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). A recently published research paper, Chen & Tung (2014), claim that changes in the saltiness (salinity) of seawater in the North Atlantic is responsible for the decadal-scale variation in ocean heat uptake, rather than the IPO, as increased saltiness makes surface water denser and therefore facilitates the sinking of water transported poleward. Chen & Tung's own analysis, however, shows that North Atlantic Ocean warming peaked in 2006 and has declined since that time whereas deep ocean warming, as a whole, has not. This new research affirms earlier work (Meehl et [2011] & Meehl et al [2013]) implicating the increased, albeit likely temporary, mixing of heat down into deeper ocean layers as a key contributor to the slower rate of surface warming in the 21st century.
You’re right, Projections works much better than predictions. Thanks for the tip. I will try using it from now on.
As far as “juvenile emotional debate tricks", I don’t know where you’re going. My first thoughts are you in the post looking to play word games in a debate. Or do you truly have an interest in AGW, I am not sure at this point.
Excuse me for being blunt, and testy, but you are lying Mike. Confusing the shrill cries of media stories with the nuanced details of scientist’s studies and reports is the way of the denialist and useless contrarianist. All in order to stay as far away from the substance of the issue.
Good, now I understand a little better what your thoughts are.
Let me help you out a little here. The “substance of the issue" is the “carbon lag". Is it not?
I think you got the [b<em>]“they predicted an ice age" in the wrong decade. We are talking mid 60’s to early 60’s here. The internet was not even thought of. So it is hard to grab data from this time period. But I just got National Geographic online and they are claiming that most if the back issues are now digitized. I will see if that is true and try and get you more information if you want.
With the same global cooling projections, came projections that increasing GHGs could well overwhelm the apparent cooling of Earth. Which is what happened. Were the scientists wrong. Bet you can’t come up with anything specific. Just these urban legends the Republican/libertarian “think tanks" keep feeding you.
Again, I don’t remember them talking about GHG’s back then. Volcanos were brought up a lot.
Why don’t Republican/libertarians ever think about the substance of the story, or include an appreciation that those cooling particles have been radically reduced while the insulating greenhouse gases have sky-rockets.
I guess they are just to busy grow food for you and the rest of the country.
Good, you are at the meat of the subject. Are you able to take what you just said to the next step? And are you able to stay on the subject and not bounce around like a Christian talking about creation?
NO, instead, folks like Mike think, we need to understand the exact math, down to the tee, before we can start believing what we know.
The self destructive insanity of that amazes me, oh the power of comfort and self-contentment.
I think you may found one of the problems here. It is about the math. Just believing in something without understanding how it works is fine when riding in your car. You do not need to know what makes it run or how all that mechanical stuff works. But when it comes to items of Law & Money it is best if you know some of the details to be able to understand what is going on. Enough anyway to understand were all the players are coming from.
What will exactitude buy us Mike?
Great question, glad you ask, CC. and let me add, Proofs are for math - not Earth sciences. I could not disagree with you more on that issue. The computer models are all about the math of the movement of energy. Math is the backbone of computer science, DNA, space, you name it.
Today we are still missing so many basic numbers that climate change is yet to become an exact science.
Ok, we both are in agreement that carbon is in the atmosphere. And carbon is one of the drivers of the climate. I do not know if you think it is the only driver or not. But I agree that the parameters of the Earth’s orbit is the main driver of the climate and the carbon adds to the earth’s natural climate cycle.
But what are the temperature numbers that relate to the carbon. In 38 years of asking that question. We only got an answer one time, and man did it turn out to be wrong.
If we do not have good science with numbers then maybe we should rely a little bit on history.
So what does history tell us? 120,000 years ago the earth was at carbon level 290. And we are at carbon level 400 today. The earth at carbon level 290 had the seas 26 feet higher. The scientists are saying we need to keep the carbon steady at 400. Many are saying that they would like to see the earth at 350. And we know past history has shown the sea can rise 66 feet above today’s level.
So what should we be looking for as far as sea levels? They don’t seem to be in agreement other than we can expect the sea to rise and there could be a bunch of bad thing coming our way in the future.
What pieces of the puzzle do we understand?
Greenhouse gases act as a blanket and help warm the atmosphere.
As for me, I like the ice cores. They match and show the earth’s cycle. And what they clearly show is that the carbon follows the heat by several hundred years (carbon lag) for the last million years in nine climate cycles. And nobody disagrees with that.
Then we got history like super volcanos. Mt Toba was the last one to erupt in 74/71 BC. Put a bunch of carbon in the air and started a little ice age. Go, figure that one out.
We know that the natural climate cycles always follows the Milankovitch cycles.
So, basically we don’t have any real solid numbers other than some instrument reading.
I keep hearing so much about how the weather on the earth is getting warmer. We have had in the last 100 years some of the warmest weather ever recorded on record.
Is the earth in the warming part of the earth’s natural cycle? Yes it is. We should expect warmer weather. Right?
Now I never hear anything about the earth’s weather getting cooler, but check out the cold reading in the last 100 years. http://www.weather.com/news/top-10-coldest-us-states-20121002?pageno=6
As far as Watts, a waste of time for me to follow what other people think of Watts on a personal level.
As far as the hunt for the missing heat in the oceans, if it is not found there, where next, space?
When it comes of ocean science, I like Scripps. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/
Question for you. If nobody questioned Al’s missing carbon lag in charts years ago. Where do you think the Global Warming would be at today? Those questions forced the scientists to make projections. Those projections showed the public what was going on with Global Warming and just how far along the scientists really were. I think questioning the science is something that doesn’t happen much in Russia and China. It took twenty-eight years to get the scientist to do a projection in degrees, and ten year to show the projection was wrong. How long do you think it will be before the next projection?
I keep hearing so much about how the weather on the earth is getting warmer. We have had in the last 100 years some of the warmest weather ever recorded on record. Is the earth in the warming part of the earth’s natural cycle? Yes it is. We should expect warmer weather. Right? Now I never hear anything about the earth’s weather getting cooler, but check out the cold reading in the last 100 years. http://www.weather.com/news/top-10-coldest-us-states-20121002?pageno=6These are historical lows. Some of them pretty old. Even if they were recent, they would be single events that latest for a day or two. That's not climate, that's weather. It has nothing to do with this discussion.
I keep hearing so much about how the weather on the earth is getting warmer. We have had in the last 100 years some of the warmest weather ever recorded on record. Is the earth in the warming part of the earth’s natural cycle? Yes it is. We should expect warmer weather. Right? Now I never hear anything about the earth’s weather getting cooler, but check out the cold reading in the last 100 years. http://www.weather.com/news/top-10-coldest-us-states-20121002?pageno=6These are historical lows. Some of them pretty old. Even if they were recent, they would be single events that latest for a day or two. That's not climate, that's weather. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you are correct. When I was writing the post, the question came to mind. Open one site, and was a little surprised. The point being, that so much of the data on this subject are given as fact. But just maybe for various reasons like people are living in places that they were not a hundred years ago that the data should not be used to draw written in stone conclusions. Even on the stuff like the Ice Core, CC is right that we should not get into the depth of the details. None of the charts have ever given the tolerances that should follow all the data. At least the last temperature projections charts had tolerances in the fact that there was a high and low line. That way when the temperature fell below the low line we knew the projections were outside of the tolerances they projected.
None of the charts have ever given the tolerances that should follow all the data.Can you explain what that even means? More important, you saying it - but not producing any actually examples, is nothing but hot air. Besides how knowledgeable are you to judge what was and was not done? - what's your educational background that gives you the competence to make all these claims with such certitude?
Now we come to the missing data, how much heat does the carbon create? Well who in the hell knows? There is this group of scientist who claimed they knew and made projections of the temperature rise this carbon would produce. And we are still looking for this missing heat today, are we not?Ah, Mike you better go back to Global Warming 101, Carbon atoms do not "produce heat" a subtle but extremely important detail you don't seem to appreciate. PS. For a serious person, first you gotta finish grade school before you can start judging high schooler's work. =======
My view is that there is 230 trillion horsepower of energy hitting the earth and controlling the climate, it is very easy to grab a few horsepower from the sun and attribute it to the carbon. I am not saying that the carbon is not contributing to the heating. I am just saying before we write the numbers in stone we better be sure.Nothing is written in stone, but heat seeking air-to-air missiles would be impossible with out the Air Force having achieved a thorough understanding of the heat transfer properties of greenhouse gases, ditto for various communications and Earth observation satellites, among others. How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? What the science says… http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm The IPCC explains... The Greenhouse Effect http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-System/ipcc-faq-greenhouse-effect.html
And the lost heat in the last ten years adds weight to the fact that those numbers may be off.What "lost heat" are you talking about? Why do you ignore that we know it's been going into the oceans? Rising Ocean Temperature: Is the Pacific Ocean Calling the Shots? http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2647 and this Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean Hannah Hickey | August 21, 2014 http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Too bad contrarians don't feel any need to achieve the quality standards of the science they remorseless flog because of a personal political ideology that has nothing to do with wanting to understand the physics of what's happening upon our planet.
What "lost heat" are you talking about? Why do you ignore that we know it's been going into the oceans?That's called deliberate ignorance, CC. It's the only way Mike can cling to his ideological beliefs. Notice he keeps beating the dead horse of carbon lag even after having the explanation shown to him. He's going to believe what he wants, reality be damned.
None of the charts have ever given the tolerances that should follow all the data.Can you explain what that even means? More important, you saying it - but not producing any actually examples, is nothing but hot air. Besides how knowledgeable are you to judge what was and was not done? - what's your educational background that gives you the competence to make all these claims with such certitude? Every building, car, plane, boat, space craft, computer, cell phone, you name it, is built to specifications. Those specification have tolerances. For example, on a plane you are drilling a hole for a bolt. You will have hole size that is given hole tolerances and thread tolerances. And you will have location tolerances. Location is built on X, Y and Z for airplanes. Some companies still use the water, butt and station line. They are the same thing. And with these datum lines and datum planes you can build to specifications. Level to the earth (water line) is the most common datum plane used for building houses, boats and things like that. The holes location from these datum lines or datum planes may be important for location of what it is your building. If it is then you are given a lower tolerance. For example a quarter of an inch is a high tolerance for a jet but low tolerance for a house. Plus or minus twenty thousand of an inch is a lower tolerance and plus or minus say 2 thousands of an inch is called close tolerance. A hair for example is 4 thousands thick. So if you have plus or minus 2 thousands, you have the width of a hair to locate your hole. The switch in on your home air conditioning and refrigerator have temperature settings. They will also have tolerances built into the switches as to when to kick on and off. So, if they say for a given period of time the earth’s natural cycle is to warm 0.02 degrees. That is two hundredths of a degree. What tolerance are they using? Then in that same time period the rise in CO2 is said to cause a rise of heat of 0.02 degrees also. Then we would be looking at a projection warmth of 0.04 degrees. But if the temperature rise in that time period is only 0.02 degrees. Then with no base lines or datum points, and no tolerances given to us, we really don’t know where we are. Are the tolerances for the natural cycle the same as for the carbon? With no datum point then it is like trying to build a plane without X, Y and Z. How much of that 0.02 can be contributed to carbon and how much to the natural cycle? Has that been happening with this global warming data? You bet it has. And I blame the scientist for letting that happen. The scientists know what happens when unclear data is released for consumption by the public. When a report says the earth was to rise 0.04 degrees and the earth only rose 0.02 degrees. Then we hear that the CO2 only caused half the warming the CO2 was supposed to. But maybe the CO2 did not cause any warming because the warming reading was caused by the earth’s natural cycle. Or maybe the CO2 warmed 0.08 degrees but the Earth’s natural cycle warmed at a minus degrees. At this time we just don’t know. But all the home scientists seem to think they know and voice their thinking. That’s why we need good computer models.