Peer Reviewed Science

4 Responses to Peer Reviewed Science

1. Gordon Vigurs says:

   January 26, 2024 at 7:57 am

   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.

   Reply
2. Barry Foster says:

   January 26, 2024 at 12:06 pm

   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.

   Reply
3. dm says:

   January 26, 2024 at 12:53 pm

   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.

   Reply
   • Gordon Vigurs says:

     January 26, 2024 at 2:59 pm

     Isn’t that petitio principii? Trying to ‘prove’ an assumed conclusion. I suppose it is in keeping with the rest of Mann’s work.

     Reply