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
- CO?²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
Recent Comments
- arn on CO?²
- Gordon Vigurs on CO?²
- Bob G on CO?²
- conrad ziefle on Back To The Future
- Francis Barnett on Back To The Future
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Crashex on Time Of Observation Bias
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Mike on Climate Scamming For Profit
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.