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
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- Imaginary Cold And Snow
- Six Years Of No Conversation
- THE YEAR OF NO WINTER
- Climate Misinformation From AI (Part II)
- Grok’s “Anecdotal” Data
- Earth Granted 26 Year Reprieve
- Ancient Astronauts
- Hillary To Win By Double Digits
- Global Communism To Save The Maldives
- Another Top New York Judge
- The Saudi Arabia Of Wind
- Defending The Faith
- 90% Certainty – Four Meters Of Sea Level Rise By 2030
- NOAA Climate Fraud Index
- 98 Degrees Too Hot For Phoenix Residents
- Global Warming Threatens The Children
- Defective Memories
- The Last Refuge
- Consensus Science From 1974
- Kennedy’s Big Oil Infatuation
- “Truman Says CIA Was Diverted From Its Original Assignment”
- 1939 Warmth And Drought
- Never Mind About Sea Level …
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Propaganda Based Forecasting
- Bob G on Propaganda Based Forecasting
- Bob G on “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- arn on “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- conrad ziefle on Six Years Of No Conversation
- conrad ziefle on Ancient Astronauts
- Mike on Imaginary Cold And Snow
- conrad ziefle on Six Years Of No Conversation
- oeman50 on THE YEAR OF NO WINTER
- Francis Barnett on Defending The Faith
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.