No acceleration of alleged "anthropogenic" warming over the past 100 years

[James]

Friday, May 17, 2013
New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the
longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied
mathematics, University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation
between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance] and the longest
continuous series of instrumental temperature measurements in the world,
the Central England Temperature [CET] record spanning 350 years since
1659. Dr. Tung also finds there has been no acceleration of alleged
"anthropogenic" warming over the past 100 years, despite an exponential
increase in CO2 emissions, and that the rate of alleged "anthropogenic"
warming is "less than half of the accepted values." Dr. Tung finds much
of the global and Northern Hemisphere temperature variability of the
past 350 years can be explained by the natural Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation [AMO].



More here http://tinyurl.com/akytjrl
--

"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one
believes individually. " ~ Abba Eban

[gordo]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:13:50 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>
wrote:

Snip
I can hardly believe that you cut and paste a blog from an anonymous
person who is known to lie. Have you no self respect James.
>
>
>More here http://tinyurl.com/akytjrl

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/20/2013 12:11 AM, gordo wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:13:50 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>
> wrote:
>
> Snip
> I can hardly believe that you cut and paste a blog from an anonymous
> person who is known to lie. Have you no self respect James.

gordo, are you REALLY too stupid to follow the link to the science?

[matt_sykes]

On 20 May, 09:24, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 12:11 AM, gordo wrote:
>

> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:13:50 -0400, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net>

> > wrote:
>
> > Snip
> > I can hardly believe that you cut and paste a blog from an anonymous
> > person who is known to lie. Have you no self respect James.
>
> gordo, are you REALLY too stupid to follow the link to the science?

Gordo is too stupid for many things. Among which are:

1) Recognising sea bass have been caught in Gritish waters for
decades.
2) Antarctic sea ic is increasing.



http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif

Nice graph from that site, even with adjusted data they cant show
warming for the last 10 years.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:24:29 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:

You are really stupid if you go to a website run by an anonymous
liar,for your science. There are many excellent science blogs on the
internet.

[Chom Noamsky]

There are some serious cognitive maladies going on in that cracked old
skull yours. You do realize that the blog isn't the source of the
science, and that the blog only links to the science. If the
"hockeyshtick" were to cover and link to John Cook's recent study, would
you reject John Cook's study because it was covered on a blog you don't
like? Your thought processes have always been irrational, but they seem
to be getting even more so.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:53:15 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

skull of yours. It must be from going to anonymous blogs for science
and rejecting actual science. You are quite irrational and very
insulting.Maybe you need a nap.I don't care what the lying blog links
to, I won't insult my intelligence by going to a site that is an
obvious shill site.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 19, 11:13 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> Friday, May 17, 2013
> New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the
> longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
> A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied
> mathematics,

So not a scientist and not a scientific paper.

>University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation
> between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance]

Except that correlation stopped around 1970.

> and the longest
> continuous series of instrumental temperature measurements in the world,
> the Central England Temperature [CET] record spanning 350 years since
> 1659. Dr. Tung also finds there has been no acceleration of alleged
> "anthropogenic" warming over the past 100 years, despite an exponential
> increase in CO2 emissions, and that the rate of alleged "anthropogenic"
> warming is "less than half of the accepted values." Dr. Tung finds much
> of the global and Northern Hemisphere temperature variability of the
> past 350 years can be explained by the natural Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation [AMO].
>
> More here  http://tinyurl.com/akytjrl
> --
>

It's also not a paper. It was a talk delivered at something called
the Taida Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Taiwan.

Here's a response to an earlier paper by Tung:


If a student asks why Alaska warms from January to July, saying
"that's the annual cycle" isn't a real answer. It's just a new name
for the mystery. A real answer would involve physics: the northern
hemisphere receives more energy in July because it points toward the
Sun more directly in July than in January.

Similarly, many people blame the recent 50 year warming trend on
various "climate cycles" but don't explain the physics causing Earth
to gain energy. Tung and Zhou 2013 is the latest attempt to blame a
large part of Earth's warming on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO), which is a long-term fluctuation in N. Atlantic sea surface
temperatures. Previous attempts include Bob Tisdale's claim and Zhou
and Tung 2012 which WUWT advertised.

Tung and Zhou subtract any apparent "oscillations" with periods
between 50 and 90 years without explaining the physics causing Earth
to gain and lose energy, as depicted in their Figure 4. They seem to
imply that these cycles are more compelling than the mainstream
explanation which involves nonrepeating events. But the universe is
full of cycles and nonrepeating events, all of which obey the laws of
physics. Because mainstream science addresses the energy balance, I
find it more compelling than math without a basis in physics.

the criticism that AMO is associated with Atlantic sea surface temps,
which themselves are warmed by the anthropogenic forcing. So if you
remove the AMO influence in your linear regression [as Tung did],
you're removing some of the anthropogenic warming, and that may
explain why it's apparently underestimated. As far as I can tell,
that main point isn't addressed in this response, unless I'm missing
it.

I still think it's circular to subtract a linearly detrended AMO to
determine AGW, and then find that the remaining AGW is linear.

More here http://www.skepticalscience.com/circular-argument-blaming-warming-on-amo.html

and

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthropogenic-global-warming-rate-Is-it-steady-for-last-100-years.html

[Chom Noamsky]

You're insulting your own intelligence and there isn't much to insult.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 5/20/2013 2:00 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 19, 11:13 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
>> Friday, May 17, 2013
>> New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the
>> longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
>> A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied
>> mathematics,
>
> So not a scientist and not a scientific paper.

Dr. Ka-Kit Tung is published in peerreviewedjournals, and I've been told
that publishing in peerreviewedjournals makes any science gold standard.

>> University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation
>> between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance]
>
>
> Except that correlation stopped around 1970.

That would defy the known laws of physics.... the sun is by far the
major driving force behind climate, so TSI is *always* going to have
some correlation with temperature.

>
>> and the longest
>> continuous series of instrumental temperature measurements in the world,
>> the Central England Temperature [CET] record spanning 350 years since
>> 1659. Dr. Tung also finds there has been no acceleration of alleged
>> "anthropogenic" warming over the past 100 years, despite an exponential
>> increase in CO2 emissions, and that the rate of alleged "anthropogenic"
>> warming is "less than half of the accepted values." Dr. Tung finds much
>> of the global and Northern Hemisphere temperature variability of the
>> past 350 years can be explained by the natural Atlantic Multidecadal
>> Oscillation [AMO].
>>
>> More here http://tinyurl.com/akytjrl
>> --
>>
>
> It's also not a paper. It was a talk delivered at something called
> the Taida Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Taiwan.

It's a talk based on his papers.

He's done a better job of isolating the anthropogenic signal than all 23
computer models relied on by the IPCC. The interesting thing is that
his research doesn't dispute anthropogenic warming, just the amount of
warming that humans are responsible for. By his estimate it's
0.07-0.08C per decade... less than half of what the IPCC projected.

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:r93lp81ropaca90jp...@4ax.com

So you are calling Prof. Ka-Kit Tung a liar. Why didn't you just say so?

[Dawlish]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:57:13 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 2:00 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 11:13 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
>
> >> Friday, May 17, 2013
>
> >> New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the
>
> >> longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
>
> >> A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied
>
> >> mathematics,
>
> >
>
> > So not a scientist and not a scientific paper.
>
>
>
> Dr. Ka-Kit Tung is published in peerreviewedjournals, and I've been told
>
> that publishing in peerreviewedjournals makes any science gold standard.
>
>
>
> >> University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation
>
> >> between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance]
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Except that correlation stopped around 1970.
>
>
>
> That would defy the known laws of physics.... the sun is by far the
>
> major driving force behind climate, so TSI is *always* going to have
>
> some correlation with temperature.

Then why does next to no-one say that the sun is the main factor responsible for the current warming? Since 1970, correlation is too low to be a major factor.

Examine the data, if you don't believe me - but you won't, because you don't want to. You want to believe anything that might possibly say that CO2 is not the main factor responsible for the warming over the temperature record, no matter how goofy and wrong it may be.

Same for other deniers. The sun is not responsible for the current warming: look at the overwhelming science that tells you it is not.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:35:04 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>

So insults is what you are good at. It takes practice I guess. I am
not very good at it.The planet is warming. Almost 100% of the
scientists who study AGW agree with the consensus. I cannot possibly
understand much of the science that these experts study. Few people
can.You can't and that is obvious.You get your science from denier
blogs written by people who get paid by the fossil fuel industry.

How could anyone start a thread with the subject of this one. Alleged
anthropogenic warming of the past 100 Years.Even Anthony Watts and
Lord Hee Haw agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[gordo]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:30:41 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>
wrote:

Who James? I never went to the site. It should be clear by now that I
will not go to shill sites.You should not either.The subject of this
thread is the type of thing you will find in denier blogs. CO2 is a
greenhouse gas. We have pumped millions of tons of the stuff in the
atmosphere and this stuff has been buried for millions of years. Do
you understand yet.

[Chom Noamsky]

Blah blah fucking blah. Get a new script.

[Chom Noamsky]

Just bizarre...

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 20, 7:57 pm, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:

> On 5/20/2013 2:00 PM, erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 11:13 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> >> Friday, May 17, 2013
> >> New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the
> >> longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
> >> A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied
> >> mathematics,
>
> > So not a scientist and not a scientific paper.
>
> Dr. Ka-Kit Tung is published in peerreviewedjournals, and I've been told
> that publishing in peerreviewedjournals makes any science gold standard.

Except his wasn't science, but math.

>
> >> University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation
> >> between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance]
>
> > Except that correlation stopped around 1970.
>
> That would defy the known laws of physics.... the sun is by far the
> major driving force behind climate, so TSI is *always* going to have
> some correlation with temperature.

Uh no. If X doesn't go up and Y does, there's no correlation. That's
middle school math.

> > More herehttp://www.skepticalscience.com/circular-argument-blaming-warming-on-...
>
> > and
>
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthropogenic-global-warming-rate-Is-...

>
> He's done a better job of isolating the anthropogenic signal than all 23
> computer models relied on by the IPCC.

Idiot.

> The interesting thing is that
> his research doesn't dispute anthropogenic warming, just the amount of
> warming that humans are responsible for.  By his estimate it's
> 0.07-0.08C per decade... less than half of what the IPCC projected.

Yes, and if it's a mathematician vs hundreds of scientists on a
scientific issue...

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message

news:tq7mp8pb4tsrs3f9m...@4ax.com

Please stop responding to posts you automatically reject because who
it's from or the subject doesn't please you.Your lemming tendencies are
shownig big time.

[James]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7133b63a-a282-47bd...@j7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com

and maybe a high school graduate could teach better than you do at
Emory.

[gordo]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:08:36 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>

You did say please and that shows you still have some manners. So
please stop getting your science from shill blogs. The real battle
between scientists, does not take place in shill blogs. It does take
place in peer reviewed journals,conferences,private emails, etc.
Most of the time we are not even a part of the dialog, simply because
we are not physicists,climatologists, and so on.

The subject did say alleged AGW.It is not that I don't like the
heading, it is that the heading is fraudulent,misleading and confusing
for those who have no background in science. Then follows a reference
to a shill site.

[Chom Noamsky]

"In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as
much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man." ― Galileo Galilei

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message

news:9peop8p5m7r2c08id...@4ax.com

Almost everything you post is misleading, fraudulent and confusing. Why
are all your reasons for bad behavior of posting without reading the
material or not liking the subject line valid in your eyes. You only end
up making shit up and trying like to defend yourself with more bs in
order to have the last word.

[gordo]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:23:53 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>

Alleged was wrong.The rest of the subject is also wrong.Check the
hockey stick graph.


Why do you think that I should not post a persons qualifications and
connections with dirty coal and oil? I have the list of the corrupt
people from the Heartland Institute. Why do you object when I call
them shill blogs when I have the documentation?

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message

news:136qp8tra3l1krtf3...@4ax.com

You make my case.

[gordo]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:07:33 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>

And your case is that I should not post about a persons
qualifications?
And your case is that I should not post a persons connections to dirty
coal and oil?
You think that I should be silent when a person who claims no
connection to dirty coal turns out to be connected to the Heartland
Institute?

Explain why I should not James.

[Desertphile]

More to the point, if Tung and his peers are correct, the world's
scientists would have already known it and none would be stating
humans are the cause--- let alone all of them.


--
"God wanted me to be in bed with the maid."