Hard to see, jopo, mojo, how a 74 year year arctic oscillation, as discussed in that paper
(i.e. /\/ cyclical with 37 year max trend impact, corrected by the following 37 years)
Has anything to do with a 100 year plus anthropomorphic global warming trend.
Other than it will be a factor causing some of the natural variability superimposed on that trend.
Actually, "hard to see" is not the right way to put it.
Better to say there's no long term impact on the anthropomorphic warming trend from a 74 year arctic cycle related to the moon.
Interesting though it is and useful to add to our overall understanding of climate.
Oh, and that bit about "they look at milankovitch as the saviour that stops the co2 theory from falling to pieces";
what a load of utter garbage.
