> "The more I review the various sensor data sources, like sea-surface data, the more I see Lunisolar signals are mixed-in, in real-time."

You talk as if you have done the data analysis. Where is it? It's not possible to hand-wave the agreement as the lunisolar cycles are precisely fixed and therefore the analysis has to be quantifiable and not just a qualitative match.

> "You rightly ask me to present a better predictive model here to compare with yours, and I have. "

Where is it? It's easy to post charts to this forum.


So you say that you "have" a "better predictive model" than mine.

Consider this passage from a recent paper called ["Quantification and interpretation of the climate variability record"](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2101/2101.08050.pdf)

> ![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et3psQHXMAEqKK6.png)

This passage demonstrates that climate scientists have little confidence as to the fundamental mechanism behind ENSO. They hedge by saying "thought to be", providing an "or", and then waffling with an "on the other hand". The charge-recharge oscillator model has never come close to matching the data in any quantifiable fashion, since it is chaotically unstable as they even admit.

So where is your predictive model of chaos?