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
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- arn on El Nino To The Rescue?
- BenV on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Peter Carroll on Worst March Drought On Record
- GW on El Nino To The Rescue?
- conrad ziefle on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on Worst March Drought On Record
- Francis Barnett on Worst March Drought On Record
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.