I can only say one thing, who would not have managed this feedback calculation during the electronics study would have gone without a graduation in engineering from the TU Dresden in the past.
But I mean the Peer review for this paper will going and going and going and going..
Let us find the error in this proof, if there is one! Maybe Anton Hofreiter as a doctor of biological science will give us the starting point.
Let us review it by ourselves, I don't think so.
On the other hand for example this is not a proof for the warming theory, this are only words and pictures: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/07/embark-essay-climate-change-pollution-revkin/
This ist a more profound site: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjpg5/peer-reviewing-climate-denial
Here on this page we read the study is "comlete trash", but what we not are able to read why it is trash. So the question also from the author, is not answered. Where is the error? So someone else has proved the error and then the study would be going to the trash.
must read it now;) ok read it, is a very short text, that says only, there was no designer for our climate, so it's not following the math for dynamic systems.
MHO it is undisputed, our weather was defined as a stochastic system by science. We are able to forecast only 3 to 5 days by our math. So on the other side climate is a middle term math over 30 years, or: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
So a forecast on climate is using this long time observation on a stochastic system. Virtualy it will multiply the stochastcs math with approximately 2000. They are speaking they use models to prove the numbers of thermal warming. And now this paper states they have scientifically found the math behind this models. But this math, which comes to the postulated numbers is a special one. Nowhere else this math is used.
Now comes there theory: we are now in the 20ties of this manmade climate change. So everyone on this planet is able to check the observed numbers with the numbers from past forecasts. They say, the observed numbers are other than the forecasts one. To prove this observed numbers, they used a well known math for dynamic modelling systems. This math calculates expected.
So to deny this new theory, the fathers and mothers of the climate calculation models must prove two terms:
First, why they not use the well known and proved math for there models. Especially why they not use the Sun also as input variable?
Second, prove that a math is wrongly used to calculate on two ways all the real and in the forecast postulated numbers from the observed one.
And there is also a third one: They should refuse comprehensivly the claim, the originator on the special math was and is not a scientist. But connected at the time of math creation with such persons. This person's where able to use the math correctly on US space programs.
So now I'm searching for a real review.
Document has slightly more text, but there is no word against the postulated math. The specified locations are maybe correct, but I as a climate layman, see no correlation.
Surprising is of course the persistence of the protagonist, to help in his tireless pursuit of mathematics for breakthrough. The question remains why he can not be beaten with his own resources. The release of this paper is now in its fifth year!