Discoveries are being made in climate science, but they are not coming from academia.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- Jimmy Haigh on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on The Anti-Greta
- Gamecock on The Anti-Greta
- William Capron on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on “a persistent concern”
- conrad ziefle on The Anti-Greta
- arn on “a persistent concern”
- Margaret Smith on “a persistent concern”
- arn on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
It looks like an atmospheric mode is being excited by the Solar activity. Junk science would claim that the variations in irradiance are too small to have much effect, because they would perform a simple equilibrium calculation, which is irrelevant to the problem. If we are looking at cyclic excitation over billions of years the transient effects are irrelevant, what we appear to have is a near resonance condition.
To study a phenomenon like this, a real scientist would seek to identify and remove all extraneous influences to produce an approximation which is good enough for gaining insights, but useless for actual prediction. Using such simplifications (which may be different for different aspects of the problem) we gain actual understanding of the phenomenon.
But no, the climate scientists put the full complexity into their models with no understanding beyond the need to ‘prove’ carbon dioxide presents an existential threat, when we suspect all we are looking at it is compounded rounding errors and numerical instability.
Of course, a computer game is easier to sell to the fund holders, than an approximate, yet useful code.
Tony, can you tell me where I can lift that graph from, please? I am currently writing a small book on Net Zero (fiasco) and would love to include your wife’s graph, and Andy May’s graph, as well.
Thank you.
According to UPenn’s grapevine: Dr. Mann seeks a grant to explain how the declining phase AND the increasing phase of the sunspot cycle INTENSIFY atmospheric CO2’s greenhouse effect.
Isn’t that petitio principii? Trying to ‘prove’ an assumed conclusion. I suppose it is in keeping with the rest of Mann’s work.