Subjective hand-waving. Do the maths. Self-similarity is observed.
"Subjective hand-waving"? Let's stick to English.
Do whatever math you like, you won't find self-similarity, despite your claim to have observed it.
My stochastic model fits very well indeed, as explained in detail by Wunsch.
He explained your model for you? That was kind of him.
Oddly enough, Wunsch's analysis is not widely regarded as definitive, and Wunsch himself has something of a maverick reputation. Relying on one paper by one guy to support your conviction is not sound policy.
http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org:8080/dspace/bitstream/1912/986/1/Huybers_revised_ms.pdf
Links between the Annual, Milankovitch, and Continuum of Temperature Variability
Peter Huybers & William Curry
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, USA
"Here we show that power-laws scale with the size of annual (1 yr) and Milankovitch period (23,000 and 41,000 yr) cycles. The annual cycle corresponds to scaling at monthly to decadal periods, while millennial and longer periods are tied to the Milankovitch cycles. Thus the annual, Milankovitch, and continuum of temperature variability together represent the response to deterministic insolation forcing. The identification of a deterministic control on the continuum provides insight into the mechanisms governing interannual and longer period climate variability."
(My emphasis)
"Numerous explanations have been advanced regarding the continuum, including stochastic
resonance [11], modified random walks [12], and diffusion [13], but all these models are partial descriptions
of the variability. Ultimately, one seeks a physics of climate from which the temperature
spectrum can be deduced, something analogous with oceanography’s theories for tides16
and internal waves [17]. Further analysis of the continuum is expected to aid in distinguishing the
processes which control climate change."
[12] references Wunsch.
So, like I say, not definitive. Wunsch isn't the only guy working in this field.
I thought the GCMs failure to hindcast the interglacials was well known. Hmm, apparently not.
Only a fool would expect GCMs designed for decades of projection to be used to model processes taking thousands of years. There are specific models for that purpose, and they reproduce observations very well. That was the primary field of climate science until relatively recently, after all, and a lot of people are still on it.
No, that's not the point. It isn't that they run out of control - they lock into one state and then cannot leave it. That is, you can set the model up to force one transition, but after that, it locks in to that position and nothing will shift it out again, due to the positive feedback. The only way to make this happen is to initialise the models in an unstable region - which could never have happened in the first place, if the model was right...
Positive feedback cannot lock a system in place. Think about it.
The albedo feedback and CO2 feedback - even at 3x positive feedback - are inadequate. You need something like 6x, at which point the climate no longer swings around, but locks into one position (hot or cold).
No, it doesn't. Positive feedback amplifies any forcing, be it warming or cooling. Given the feedbacks (which includes water-vapour, let's not forget) at physically reasonable levels, modern models work perfectly well.
"Has turned into a reality" - LMAO - but seriously, if it was all sorted fifty years ago, why did Carl Wunsch write a paper just four years ago pointing out that a stochastic explanation works just as well?
See above regarding the one guy, one paper thing. The more attractive a paper sounds the more sceptically you should approach it. Try to demolish it. Do the math, check references, ask yourself if it makes sense given the wider scheme of things, look up counter-opinions. If it passes muster, add it to the pile. Never hang your hat on one paper or one observation.
)
