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
- Ice Free Glacier National Park
- Climate Comedy Cancelled
- Warmest March On Record
- New Climate Metric
- Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct
- Food And Energy Experts
- “Are We Imagining It?”
- The Suffragettes
- Michael Mann Upset
- A Serious Problem
- Miami Drowning
- No Longer The Greatest Existential Threat
- Almost Unanimous Consensus Of Scientists
- Maryland To Drown
- Rapid Virus Mutation
- Wisconsin To Save The Planet
- Magical Musk
- “Scientists Forecast”
- “thing of the past” update
- Defunding The Climate Scam
- “Record Low Sea Ice”
- Leader Of The Free World
- Measuring The Heat
- Bankrupting The #1 Climate Fraud
- Cyclone Mahina
Recent Comments
- Jack the Insider on Food And Energy Experts
- Bob G on Climate Comedy Cancelled
- Bob G on Ice Free Glacier National Park
- Ulric Lyons on Warmest March On Record
- arn on New Climate Metric
- william on New Climate Metric
- conrad ziefle on Warmest March On Record
- Trevor on Warmest March On Record
- Denis Rushworth on Warmest March On Record
- arn on Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct
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.