Cycles

You are correct. I am used to oversimplying for some lay people I talk to. Should not on this forum.

You are somehwat correct. First of all we have the earth's mantle and crust. The plates ride on the outer core which is liquid hot iron. Being liquid it can expand or contract in correlation with changes in the gravitation field. Being mostly iron, it can likely undergo changes due to the electromagnetic field from the sun, and changes in the electromagnetic field and gravitation as the moon passes between the earth and sun (disrupting the electromagetic field). Thus with the plates riding on this liquid iron....the plates can and do move. By correlating historical earthquakes (in a region of concern) you can track the earthquakes through time. I have been extremely successful tracking the Californian major earthquakes (6.4 and greater) through time, thus providing a forecast for the next 6.4 or greater with a 90% reliability.

Yes, it is in my newest paper. It is on my website at www.globalweathercycles.com , look in the browser menu at the botton under "Natural Climate Pulse". There is a charge for the paper though. I do not receive grants, so this research was totally funded by my company, and is not afflliated with any political parties or other companies. Totally unbiased and is a collection of about 50 other papers by researchers and my research.

Actually human generated CO2 is not all that bad either, good for photosynthesis. Non CO2 pollution is not good though.

We have had high carbon dioxide and methane levels before, and no runaway global warming. At the peak of the interglacial periods that come approximately every 116k years the temperature is at its peak with CO2 following by 200 to 800 years, sometimes even longer. But the world temperatures then begin falling toward the next ice age, but wow, the CO2 remains high for a few thousand years but does not stop the temperature drop. If CO2 is the cause for warming, then the temperatures could not drop with high CO2....this puts the AGW theory, and I mean therory, totally illogical. Earth will have rapid cooling by around 2020, maybe even sooner. This cannot be stopped by the CO2. And we are heading toward the next ice age...although it is still 30-40 thousand years away. If we ever find out CO2 keeps temperatures up (and this is doubtful), we should put as much into the air as possible so we can avoid the next ice age.... but this is all silly.

No the Sun does not cause volcanoes, no one said it does. But the gravitation changes due to the Lunisolar Precession due have a correlation with volcanoes and especially earthquakes.

This is highly unlikely. Both the quiet solar cycle and the phase of the Lunisolar Cycle will completely overshadow anything man has done. I have been traveling with speaking engagements with John Casey author of the Cold Sun. He and I used slightly different approaches but came to the same conclusion on the upcoming dangerous global cooling cycle. Both of us know there is a high degree of liklihood of a historically large volcano occuring in conjunction with cooling. This has occured following the prior 5 global warming cycles since 900AD. The combination of the natural cooling cycles and Lunisolar Precession stress on the earths crust and mantle will likely cause this volcano...as large or larger than Tambora in 1815...then a year of no summer and crop failures. It is all covered in my paper "Natural Climate Pulse" which is available on my web site.

Rather difficult to explain if you have not read my new paper. But essentially what I did is apply my research to the reported occurences of the North Atlantic warm water pulses that entered the Arctic near the years 1990, 1999 and 2008. First I compared the warm water pulse dates to my Lunisolar Precession research, then applied it to pulses going back through each global warming cycle since 800 AD. Provides a valuable clue and insight into what may be controling the Arctic metling and the 10-year global warming spikes which occur on every global warming cycle (recurring every 230 years). Regards Cycles

You are correct. I am referring to the paper by Polyakov published in May 2011. Fate of Early 2000s Arctic Warm Water Pulse Aigor V. Polyakov, Vladmir A. Alexeeve et al, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 92 Number 5, May 2011.

And you are correct about the paper by Polyakov. However, I tied some of my research into it. By doing so, I do believe that I am able to add more to our knowledge concerning the warm water pulse. David

As you may recall I said 5 years ago that phase II cooling would not begin until about 2020-23. Now more researchers are coming out with the same forecast as mine. Have outlined the cycles in my newest rewrite and update of my original eBook. The paper is called "Natural Climate Pulse".

A North Atlantic warm pulse of water entered the Arctic in 2008 and will take about 13-years to circulate the Arctic and finally die out during the 10th to 13th year. What this means is continued melting in the Arctic until the warm pulse diminishes. The ending of this warm pulse coincides with both the new Maunder minimum and the Lunisolar Precession cycles...both of which indicate an end to the warm pulses and rapid global cooling setting in by about 2020.

Boar: Has anyone had problems with their antivirus? This is the first report I have had. Cycle

Would like to pass on this information about a new climate publication called "Natural Climate Pulse" Handbook to understanding what is actually going on with our climate (major update to the original eBook released in 2007) <P> The Big Political "Hoax" about Carbon dioxide and temperature WHAT THE MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU! <P>.. topics in this Handbook include scientific evidence showing ..Carbon Dioxide is actually a good gas Where Carbon Dioxide comes from, and the carbon cycle and temperature Manipulated Censorship of scientific research and mediaEarth was actually warmer 1,000 years agoThere was actually less ice in the Arctic 6,000 years agoCarbon Dioxide levels are actually the same today as 1,000 years agoCyclical 100 year fluctuations in Carbon Dioxide levels are normalWhat is actually causing the Arctic ice to meltWhat are the actual causes for Global warmingClimate forecast Very Dangerous Global Cooling Coming Soon Great volcanoes and a Year of No Summer More Dangerous than - global warming</P>It can be found at http://www.globalwea...imatePulse.html If we can designate one person on the forum to review it, I can send a pdf copy. Regards Cycles

Natural cycles of the earth,moon and sun. Earth is very much like a living organism, it needs sleep or rest periods which lowers it temperature, and warm robust periods which raises its temperature. These cycles come approximately every 72 years, 200 years, 1500 years, 110k years and 450k years. The earth's temperature and carbon dioxide varies during these cycles, it always has and always will. And earth needs carbon dioxide to thrive, higher levels translates to robust plant life and more oxygen. Lower levels during ice ages translates to less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and less plant life, and a lowering of oxygen. The earth moon and sun has hundreds of cycles which produce more radiance, more gravitation, all of which cause cycles.

The La Nina does have a role in this winters weather, and the winer 5 months ago in the southern hemisphere. But cooling via natural cycles is a very big role player here.

Here is another intersting thing about the CO2 cores written to me on another thread... "Dear David, Much depends of the resolution of the ice core and the duration and amplitude of the change in CO2 level... If the duration is long enough (a few times the resolution), the amplitude is not important anymore. For the past 1,000 years the Law Dome ice core with 40 years resolution is fine enough to show a small change (6 ppmv) in CO2 level when the earth was cooling some 0.8 C during a few hundred years. Any spike of let us say 20 ppmv lasting one year in the atmosphere still would be measurable above the noise (1.2 ppmv, one sigma) in the 8 year resolution Law Dome ice cores, spread as a smoothed increase over a decade with a maximum of 4 ppmv, if the diffusion model calculation is right (the firn measurements confirmed these figures). But any spike less than 10 ppmv lasting one year over the past 100 years in the atmosphere would be missed, even in the highest accumulation ice cores, because the smoothed increase is within the measurement accuracy. For more distant times, the resolution is worse, which needs either very large CO2 spikes or a very long duration of the canges (which is the case for glacial-interglacial periods). Thus short living moderate spikes will be missed in the far past cores... Regards, Ferdinand Engelbeen Oude Ertbrandstraat 12 B-2940 Stabroek België End quote from Ferdinand Engelbeen

Some of my prior posts on this thread asked the question about mean values of CO2 taken from ice core samples, thus dampening and hiding CO2 spikes. Below is an intersting post by Ferdinand Engelbeen on the Yahoo Group "Climate Sceptics" forum. This is an interesting post on another forum and it states... "Looks like that the distribution of a one-time atmospheric CO2 pulse in the ice core bubbles is smoothed assymetric, with a long tail over time. Thus, indeed any fast change in constituents of the atmosphere would be smoothed in the ice core. For the large long-term changes (glacials-interglacials), that doesn't play much role, but any relative fast change (e.g. ocean influences like the PDO) would be missed. Despite that, other medium timespan changes like D.-O. events (taking two to five thousand years) are seen in the temperature proxy (ice isotopes) as well as in the CO2 (gas level) data records. With CO2 lagging temperature with some 1200 +/- 700 years (see <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf ). Regards, Ferdinand Engelbeen

Thank you SSS for your post...I certainly will read the links you posted this weekend, much on my plate right now. Again, thank you for your time and patience Regards David Dilley

SSS....Have a question, please help me to understand this. I pasted Vostok values below. In comparing lines 3 and 4...When the Age of the ice is 7043 bp (line 3) and 9523 (line 4), and the corresponding "Mean Age of Air" is 3833 and 6220 (with CO2 ppm 254.6)....is the CO2 a mean value during the period from 3833BP to 6220BP (almost 2400 years). Age of age of CO2 Depth the ice the air concentration (m) (yr BP) (yr BP) (ppmv) 149.1 5679 2342 284.7 173.1 6828 3634 272.8 177.4 7043 3833 268.1 228.6 9523 6220 262.2250.3 10579 7327 254.6 266 11334 8113 259.6 302.6 13449 10123 261.6 321.2 14538 11013 263.7 331.6 15208 11326 244.8 full Vostok text at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

Yes I understand the IPCC thinking, and of course Natural Cycles which are much more powerful than anthropogenic. Thank You SSS Regards David

SSS Very good post with good links. Looks like you pretty much answered my question. I of course still have concern over why earth's temperatures dropped and remained steady from 1940 into about the 1980s..this of course during a period when CO2 was steadily going up. Thank you SSS, most informative Regards David

I have a question concerning the distribution of CO2 around the earth. We know official instrument readings are taken on Mauna Loa in Hawaii, at about 11,000 feet (about 3,200m). The current concentratons of 385 ppm are used as the official figure. However when reconstructing atmospheric concentrations through ice core samples, the sites are in the Antarctic and very high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, and not at 11,000 feet as in Hawaii. This brings a question about science saying concentrations have never been as high as 385 ppm. First of all...the ice core samples are at high latitudes. Second..they are nearer sea level and not at 11 thousand feet. Third, they are taken from ice cores and not today's instantaneous instruments. Fourth..do we have readings at 11 thousand feet near the ice core sample stations? And/or what are the readings in the free air near these stations? Regards David Dilley

I stated that lunar perigees occur around the time of equinoxes/solstices...did not state they occur on them. By saying around, this means usually within weeks of...not on. You took it too literally. This is why my research is different and not as well documented by other researcher's. I really do not care about the solstices/equnioxes...but I do care about the coincidence of high declination/perigee cycles (greatest gravitational pull on earth, the earth's inner liquid core, the earth's expandable crust and plates, the oceans and even the atmosphere.

The cycles are well documented within my book. David