The Maths is way above my head. I wish I knew what a power spectrum is. The narrative parts are funny and really expose the idiocy of those who think they can make long-term predictions using computer models and deterministic ways of thinking. Thankyou, Prof Koutsoyiannis, for your work.
I am suspicious of these mathematical frequency detecting techniques (and I'm a mathematician). I feel that in many cases the best they can do is give clues for further investigation.
A case in point is "Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks" by Ellis and Palmer (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305), which addresses the "100,000-year problem". The "100,000-year problem" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) is that for a long time during our current ice age there was a 100,000-year glacial-interglacial cycle, and then suddenly it changed to a 40,000-year cycle, and no-one knew why. It was obviously connected with Milankovitch cycles, but why did it switch from the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycle to the 40,000-year one? Ellis and Palmer found the answer - there never was a glacial-interglacial 100,000-year cycle or 40,000-year cycle, it was a shorter cycle, but it missed beats. And the frequency-detecting maths never detected the actual frequency.
The scientific establishment has never given Ellis and Palmer the credit they deserve. Maybe it was because Ellis and Palmer negated just about everything in the establishment's climate models by showing that ultra-low atmospheric CO2 was a factor in triggering the rapid warming at the end of a glacial period.
Thanks Michael, for your important comment. You are right to point to the Milankovitch cycles. They certainly affect climate. As an explanatory tool they are useful, but their predictability power is questionable as evidenced by the sudden switch of periodicities you mention.
But these are on time scales of several thousand years. My booklet is not about those. You may see my take on those in the following paper:
Y. Markonis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, doi: 10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9, 2013, https://www.itia.ntua.gr/1297/
The Maths is way above my head. I wish I knew what a power spectrum is. The narrative parts are funny and really expose the idiocy of those who think they can make long-term predictions using computer models and deterministic ways of thinking. Thankyou, Prof Koutsoyiannis, for your work.
Than you for your encouragement, Ariane!
I am suspicious of these mathematical frequency detecting techniques (and I'm a mathematician). I feel that in many cases the best they can do is give clues for further investigation.
A case in point is "Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks" by Ellis and Palmer (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305), which addresses the "100,000-year problem". The "100,000-year problem" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) is that for a long time during our current ice age there was a 100,000-year glacial-interglacial cycle, and then suddenly it changed to a 40,000-year cycle, and no-one knew why. It was obviously connected with Milankovitch cycles, but why did it switch from the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycle to the 40,000-year one? Ellis and Palmer found the answer - there never was a glacial-interglacial 100,000-year cycle or 40,000-year cycle, it was a shorter cycle, but it missed beats. And the frequency-detecting maths never detected the actual frequency.
The scientific establishment has never given Ellis and Palmer the credit they deserve. Maybe it was because Ellis and Palmer negated just about everything in the establishment's climate models by showing that ultra-low atmospheric CO2 was a factor in triggering the rapid warming at the end of a glacial period.
Thanks Michael, for your important comment. You are right to point to the Milankovitch cycles. They certainly affect climate. As an explanatory tool they are useful, but their predictability power is questionable as evidenced by the sudden switch of periodicities you mention.
But these are on time scales of several thousand years. My booklet is not about those. You may see my take on those in the following paper:
Y. Markonis, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, doi: 10.1007/s10712-012-9208-9, 2013, https://www.itia.ntua.gr/1297/