p.s. That forcing spectrum appears complex (i.e. high entropy) but is actually quite simple as it's just the result of an orbit-based calculation of tractive gravitational forcing where the lunar range R and declination D changes according to ~sin(D)/R^3. Everything else factors as weaker harmonics via nonlinear Taylor series expansion.

If climate research was a scientific discipline with the same kind of rigor and competitiveness as condensed matter or solid-state physics, I would venture that someone/anyone would be jumping on this approach to either debunk it or to support it. Way too much is at stake in understanding how climate changes in its natural state. Billions or even trillions of global $$$ can be saved in agriculture planning and disaster control if we can anticipate when the next El Nino will occur. It's disappointing how little interest there is in these ideas -- I have tried, presenting at 3 AGU meetings and one overseas EGU meeting, with virtually zero feedback.

People on this forum have probably not seen this video but I asked the esteemed climate scientist Raymond Pierrehumbert a question during a recent online session. As context, in astrophysics/astronomy circles it often occurs that an amateur scientist will make an amazing discovery, with the full backing of professional and academic astronomers. Alas, this does not often happen in climate science as many of the "amateurs" are not as interested in advancing science as they are in making a political statement, which Pierrehumbert explains:

https://youtu.be/XdtTapL9fLg

> "That amateur scientists are more accepted in astrophysics uh than climate science uh and there's actually quite a lot of there's actually quite a lot of citizen science done in client and climate uh the phenomenon in climate science though is that a lot of so-called citizen science has been really sloppy science not citizen science. Citizen science can be very good but but some people with a **political agenda** to try to so-called disprove global warming uh uh have you know have have been making a lot of a lot of onerous data requests and uh uh that scientists have hard time keeping up with and then just raising spurious questions that that uh that just try to confuse the issue rather than doing honest science but but the data is almost completely open from climate modeling and so forth there's a lot of open source code but unfortunately some some uses of citizen science and climate science has has has **given it a bad name**"

> *from a Facebook presentation on the [Climate of Exoplanets](https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=2947621085364200&ref=watch_permalink)*

So the explanation is essentially that the topic of climate sciences and likely earth sciences in general has been poisoned by lots of cr@nks and cr@ckpots harboring some political agenda. This doesn't happen in other disciplines such as semiconductor research since [a fraudster is quickly uncovered](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal), allowing everyone else to move on.

A follow-up question that I asked Pierrehumbert (but he didn't answer) pertained to the use of machine learning in climate science. What happens when naive machine learning algorithms start "explaining" climate behaviors? Will these get more readily accepted by the climate science community, as machines have no political agenda? Or will this just poison the atmosphere with more junk models that will take years more to weed out?

Science is like tending a garden: it doesn't matter how much water & fertilizer you give the plants -- if you don't weed out the bad stuff and let the good stuff room to grow, you won't be making any progress.

So if climate science remains stuck in the land of chaos, blindly obeying the pronouncements of Edward Lorenz and his butterfly theory, it's likely that little progress will be made. Between a belief in high-entropy chaos on one side and cr@nks & cr@ckpots on the other, the outlook for climate science looks bleak.

---

Here's a trending news item from a NASA JPL study:
[A Study Predicts Record Flooding In The 2030s, And It's Partly Because Of The Moon](https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1015800103/a-study-predicts-record-flooding-in-the-2030s-and-its-partly-because-of-the-moon)