Cycles

Literature I read for my book indicated that ice core samples are very unreliable during the past 3,000 years or so...and yes I read Fischer, but data is unreliable. It takes several thousands of years for ice to form through the process of compacting snow. So how is it that you continually site new ice data as being relilable and with small deviations of CO2? And again I stand by what I said concerning ice core samples older than 5,000 years. There is a long term mean taken during these samples, and by doing so it dampens out warm/cool cycles which occur every 200 years. And it is common knowledge among researchers that these readings are not as accurate as an instantaneous reading by today's instruments....thus in some instances we are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing old data versus today's data. My research was quoted properly from the research papers I read. And yes anyone can argue differences in approaches, that is why there are thousands of papers out there with differeing views concerning reliability...probably is not a concensus on reliability. And we should look at the IPCCC. Just a few years ago they said temperatures were running away and unstopable unless we stop putting CO2 into the air. Well, temperatures have not risen in 12 years (remained flat). And now the IPCC is recognizing some natural cycles by indicating temperatures could remain steady for 30 years....how can this be if CO2 is the cause for rising temperatuere? Every time we pick up an IPCC article they change their thinking... Meanwhile, I have not changed my thinking or forecast. Earth is in phase 1 of global cooling with phase 2 only about 19 years away. Regards David

Please let me know if I am wrong, but is the Fischer study for newer ice and with the high resolution you are talking about? It is the newer ice I have heard has problems because of the age of it (too new. Data I looked at for the older ice had much less resolution (600 to a few thousand years old), and thus providing mean values for many warming-cooling cycles during the period in question.

I have listed below many of the references I used. And I do remember some sources indicating problems with using new ice (newer than a few thousand years old). And you are right, those using the new ice have good resolution such as what you mentioned (few hundred years). The older ice data cited in my book is for period well beyond several thousand years ago, and the resolution is several hundread years out to several thousand years...just as I mentioned in the book. For their data noise was filtered out, and of course values meaned over the several hundred to several thousand year period. Big question concerns the noise filtered out...is it totally noise, or is it spiked in CO2 during the 200 year recurring global warming cycles?? References... 3. Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus43(:83- 90. 4. Barnola, J.M.,Raynaud D., Lorius C., Historical CO2 Record from the Vostok Ice Core, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Geophysique de l’Environment, 38402 Saint Martin d’HeresCedex, France,. 8. Fischer, H. Whalen, M., Smith, J. Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations. Science, 12 Mar 1999: 283: 1712-1714. 13. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, at the Earth Institute at Columbia University http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/ 14. Mann M.E., Bradley and Hughes, 1998, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No.6, p. 759-762 20. Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and Atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. 1. 1000 year and 2000 year temperature reconstructions from Wikipedia (Figures 21-22) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparisons.Png#Reconstructions 2. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures, The Holocene, 8: 455-471. 3. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762. 4. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction, Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289: 270-277. 5. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network, J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941. 6. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability, Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. 7. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814. 8. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143 9. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future, Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781 10. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265 11. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046 (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

I plotted the Vostok ice core samples and the plot was available only had meaned data points for anywhere from about 1000 to 4000 years...did not have points anywhere near 140 years or 300 years. The values are meaned over a long period of time to rid noise (such as seen in 4 or 5 year running means for world temperatures during the past 100 years). Yes they may analyze data every 140 or 300 years or so, but it is then meaned over a much longer period of time. And it should be noted that takes several thousand years for snow to compact to form ice, thus new ice from 4 to 8 thousand years ago does have problems as you noted in the earlier thread. I recognize this and talk about it during power point presentations. This is the main reason we do not have a history of CO2 from 1900 back several thousand years. Regards David Dilley

1. Quick answer to some of your question. Item #1 I used different data than most researchers, exacted the data myself and this is the average lunar month the data showed...27.3 strong cycle using perigee and declination, so it differs from a straight declination cycle once the mean is taken. Item #2 Yes there is a typo or two....this is a free book with no grant money, did our best with limited resources...and thank you for pointing out the Bryson mispelling in that one stance, we had not caught that one, most understand and get by it just fine. Item #3 I am sure someone would have complained about anyone I used. Item #4 Ice in Lake Vostok only goes to about 450,000 years ago...so it is different than the one you mention 500km from it...that is quite a difference and conditions can be different Item #6 I am talking about permafrost newly exposed as glaciers retreat and melt, and as the 200 year warming cycles warm northern areas...so it is newly exposed in most cases. Some good suggestions by you, but I could not cover all in my limited book available "free" for all to read. If you would like to help with a more indepth book...we should do it. Thank you for your comments...and it was nice to see they did not change my findings. Regards David

References including a reference for ice cores are in my ebook on my web site. David Must admit sometimes the IPCC papers do appear to come from a group walking out of a bar...I surely agree with you on this. But the averaging is documented and is how it is done...they do not take a 1 year reading like the IPCC group does. Sorry if I have burst some bubbles, so to speak. Regards David

But my research is based on past climate, past and future lunar cycles as the driver of climate. So it does have a great deal to due with what is happening now "climate intrustion fight between warm and cold" cyclical climates. If we are not comparing like data (present to past), then we cannot achieve the proper goal. Regards David

When I talk about ocean temperatures, I am referring to satellite temperatures comparing ocean temperatures to ocean temperatures prior to accurate measurements. We do not have a good handle on ocean temperatures at the peak of the interglacial periods that occur approximately every 123,000 years. When temperatures and CO2 peaked 123,000 years ago, do we know how warm the oceans were as compared to todays oceans? No we do not. Did we have glacial melting? Yes we did and during all 5 peaks of what I call mega warming cycles which occur approximately every 120,000 years. And CO2. The IPCC and other groups indicate that instrument readings of 385 ppm has never occured before (during the past half million years). We must remember that ice core samples taken to determine CO2 are meaned over a 1 to 4 thousand year period (unlike todays 1 year mean). By doing so, spikes which are called noise are eliminated. Thus mean values of 280ppm taken over the course of a 2 or 3 thousand year mean eliminates individual 200 year warming and cooling cycles. Thus the mean of 280 ppm likely has spikes well above 300 ppm (and possibly near 360 or greater). Maybe we should take the 385 ppm during the past year and average it with data over the past 4 thousand years...what do you think we would see? Regards David

Thankyou for answering my question. We all know the El Nino distributes temperatures around the global due to the change in the atmospheric circulation. And we all know that record high temperatures normally have record low temperatures occuring elsewhere. I was merely asking the question about 100 year records falling, cold and warm. And some of both are occuring. But during a warming earth it would seem more difficult for 100 year cold temperatures to occur, thus it should point somewhat to what I was referring to...a possible transition from warming to cooling, just like you see in the spring, a transitional fight between spring and intrusions of winter/or summer weather. Just pointing this out, we have not seen this occurance so dramatic during the past 15 years, or perhaps since the 1940s following the ending of the first global warming 9-year temperature spike. And yes, the El Nino is also playing a large role in what we are seeing. Regards David

I still have not seen my question answered from 3 pages ago.. So here is a question again. The very cold and snow areas of the earth are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records? The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Regards David

Absolutely not. If 100 year cold and snow records are being set and high temperature records are not...then we must have more cold air than usual under these circumstances (El Nino). Regards David

You kind of double talked in your two paragraphs. Yes, some areas are quite warm, but some areas are seeing snow and cold not seen for 100 years. So here is a question. The cold and snow areas are seeing 100 year records tied or broken. Are the warm areas seeing the opposite...100 year records? The ocean areas we do not know about, records do not go back far enough, using satellite data versus sparse shipping reports is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Regards David

I agree we have not had net cooling this winter, with the primary reason being the El Nino. But there is more cold air available this winter and the past 2 winters than any time during the period 1997 to 2007. Difference this winter is the El Nino influencing high latitudes on either side of the strong upper level ridges.

Your statements seem to indicate your unawareness of a strong El Nino in place, with this causing a strong redistribution of temperatures, usually happens during an El Nino. Yes this El Nino is a little different than other's, but it did act normally in causing cooler than norm winter over the southern United States, troughing in the Eastern pacific and Atlantic. Because earth is in a transition between global warming and cooling, more cold air has been available in mid to high latitudes to produce cooler weather south of the arctic jet. Meanwhile El Nino forced warm air has penetrated north across the eastern Pacific into high latitudes of Alaska and Canada. Regards David

Getting back to the purpose of this forum "Sea Level Rise Will Double Due to Melting of Antarctica" I noticed the very first post indicated the study was up to the year 2008. Queston...has the melting slowed or even began ice restoration in the Antarctic since 2008? And the same for the Arctic? Regards David

Here is a copy of the approximate 200 year Lunar Cycle and the ice core temperatures during the past 100 years. Please note when the low term mean position of strong lunar declinations fall to their lowest point, the first spike in global warming temperatures occur, then the second spike as the lunar cycle begins shifting northward.

NSSC and Badboy It is correct that nothing really changes. Here in the states, and in the climate world, those who see their objectives disproven (either political or anthropogenic warming) are the first to counter with ridicule and slander (minds closed instead of trying to learn). Basically this means they are on the run and cannot counter with science, or with sound political ideas. I know my non mainstream research and thinking will continue to be controversial for several years to come. And this why I have been hitting the road with speaking engagements...many curious minds out there, all of whom want to learn and hear the truth. Regards David

Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof. AGW people cannot fit CO2 data to show CO2 is the cause of warming. Actually it is the reverse, temperatures rise first and then CO2 through natural processes. It is well documented that Milankovich Cycles have a great influence on climate cycles. The lunar cycles are a part of these cycles, so are you ignoring known science? Regards David

All sources are referenced at the end of the ebook. Also referenced where data can be found. The 1000 year temperature graph was plotted using known data sets provided to me and referenced in the book, the corresponding 1000 year lunar cycles were calculated by me, the raw data site is referenced in my book. The temperature graphs beyond 1000 years were not done by GWO, although the analyses of were done by GWO. All data can be reproduced by anyone willing to take the time to do so. \ Absolutely no false data was included within the book...all referenced sources are available online. I understand that my research is not mainstream, and thus difficult for most to comprehend. This is why I offered my time to explain any items of concern. What I usually encounter instead is critism by those who will not open their mind to non mainstream thinking, or by those who will not even take the effort to look at my ebook. It is free on my site, absolutely nothing stopping you. Bashing my work by one individual serves no purpose, unless he is the greatest scientist on earth and knows everything about carbon dioxide, natural cycles, and man's influence. Sorry, I must be talking about GOD. So if we are here to only bash, and not learn. Then I am out of here. Regards David Dilley

Perhaps some skeptism does come from the timing of my forecast concerning the beginning of the current El Nino. I had originally forecast the strongest El Nino in over 10 years to begin around Christmas 2009 to January 2010. Unfortunately my timing was premature due to the very strong entrenched La Nina. Therefore it took longer to form than usual, and thus instead of forming on the mid-point peak of the PFM cycle (see El Nino secton www.GlobalWeatherCycles.com), it formed 6 months later on the right hand side of the PFM peak. Yes the timing was off a little, but the El Nino did form on the peak of the PFM cycle as predicted, and it is the strongest EL Nino in over 10-years. As far as global warming or cooling goes, we are at the beginning stage of cooling and thus there is still interaction between the warm and cool cycle, much like early spring weather where you have some days much like spring and some intrustions of left over winter. It will take several years for warm ocean currents to cool, and of course this years El Nino clouds any issue, with the exception that it is a strong El Nino. And I do agree, El Nino often act different from one to the next. When I am a presenter at an event, I am often in the middle of the road on many issues. I do not adhere to everything said by the so called Skeptics, and/or AGW. Both sides throw out either exagerated statements, or statements from poor sources. I welcome opinion, especially if you become familiar with my work, and it is free to read on my web site. Lastly; I have a 1 hour power point presentation which provides updated graphics and better graphics than my book. During the past few months I have been the guest speaker at many functions, and will continue to spread the truth about carbon dioxide and Natural Cycles of temperature and carbon dioxide. I would love to present somewhere in Great Britain, Irleand area this summer.

As I was saying, El Nino normally brings warmer winters and this instance it did not over the U.S., yes it did in some areas, and that is to be expected. My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise. But, it is hard to neglect such record snow and cold during the past 2 winters...much of which had not been seen since prior to the warm period of 1997-2008. Then it comes to the melting of glaciers. Past cycles during the last half million years strongly indicate we are now in a cooling cycle and that rises in sea levels will have to wait until the next warming cycle in about 200 years. Regards David

John It is a fact the United States was below the long term mean (temperature) during January and February, even with an El Nino. Normally the United States would be warmer with an El Nino, but it was not. Many of the years from 1998 through 2007 saw rainy winters here, and not snowy winters...and this occured without the aid of warm El Nino years. Florida is having one of the coldest years in 100 years, earliest snow ever in Houston texas, most snow ever in Dallas texas and some of the mid Atlantic states, most number nights with below freezing temperatures in north Florida, snow in central Florida. Oh, guess it is global warming. Or could it be the El Nino circulation brought milder air into western and eastern Canada, but yet more cold air was available than prior years to still enable cold enough temperatures for snow? Yes some areas of the globe have been warm during this El Nino winter, and some have been cold and snowy. Pretty difficult to say global warming is well entrenched when we see snow and cold records fall that have been in place for 100 years....thought global warming only began about 80 years ago. Regards David

The United States has set all kinds of temperature and snow records the past 3 winters, with this winter more so than other's for snow. Yes, direct link to El Nino. But, earlier El Nino's were more rain than snow during the 1997 to 2007 period. What this means is that although the El Nino is causing warming this winter, it likewise means there is more cold air available than anytime during the past 10 years...thus cooling. Seems the IPCC was 99.8 percent sure man is causing warming (as of a few years ago), and likewise confidence of a melt down. Sure is a high confidence level with global cooling likely occurring for the next 100+ years. Need to look at the next warming cycle between 2130 and 2200 for the melt down.