[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I got one that will make the belivers pee fire for sure.

As an example; Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10....O%3E2.0.CO%3B2

It only makes more sense than all their failed predictions and is more plausible than pretending to understand everything.

Very well, I'll have a go.

That article is 28 years old.

Global and hemispheric series of surface temperature anomalies are examined in an attempt to isolate any specific features of the structure of the series that might contribute to the global warming of about 0.5°C which has been observed over the past 100 years.

That would be 1890 to 1990. We already established that we have no reliable data older than about 1958 or so, and that the global temperature has risen substantially since 1990:

It is found that there are no significant differences between the means of the positive and negative values of the changes in temperature from one year to the next; neither do the relative frequencies of the positive and negative values differ from the frequencies that would be expected by chance with a probability near 0.5

Since 1990 the probability margin has come down and the global temperature has gone up. Guess what that does for the prediction in this part, whatever it means.
Assuming they mean positive or negative values of the changes in the average global temperatures per year, that provides just a limited set of reliable data points (only 32 between 1958 and 1990) which might just do for trend analysis, but falls short for frequency analysis.

We hypothesize that the global and hemispheric temperature series are the result of a Markov process. The climate system is subjected to various forms of random impulses. It is argued that the system fails to return to its former state after reacting to an impulse but tends to adjust to a new state of equilibrium as prescribed by the shock. This happens because a net positive feedback accompanies each shock and slightly alters the environmental state.

Ah, it is a hypothesis. it might fit the data on which it was based, but the real test is subjecting it to new data. We can test that 1990 hypothesis on the data afterwards (1990 to 2018). Clearly, it fails. If you are looking for climate theories that go wrong, here is one.
While it is true that the climate is subjected to various forms of random impulses, it is also subjected to a reduction of outgoing heat radiation caused by a steady buildup of various greenhouse gases. This impulse is ongoing and increasing. There's no adjusting to a new equilibrium as there is no steady state.
Rather than subjected to undulations mimicking a Markov chain random generation process, we see the system forced out of balance in a consistent manner.

The AMS seems like a legit organization, but if you dig hard and deep you'll probably find some old papers proposing hypotheses that don't hold up when checked against fresh data.

This museum piece is debunked.