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
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
- Francis Barnett on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Disillusioned on A Real Hockey Stick
- dm on A Real Hockey Stick
- Gordon Vigurs on Doubling Energy Costs
- arn on A Real Hockey Stick
- Gordon Vigurs on Doubling Energy Costs
- Gordon Vigurs on A Real Hockey Stick
- arn on A Real Hockey Stick
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.