Cycles

Guess I should say "Oh dear to you also". First you have to understand natural cycles, and it is evident the IPCC does not. You may read my ebook free if you like. Cycles are cycles, and we are now entering global cooling. Do not let the El Nino warming sway the fact that earth is cooling. If it were not cooling, the United States would not have had the large snowstorms of 2009-10, they would likey have been rain.

Most of the truth concerning sea level rises, or possible sea level rises, is somewhere between the liberal and conservative view. Yes the earth's oceans normally experience sea level rises near 300 feet leading up to the 120,000 year mega global warming cycles. they also see an approximate 10 foot rise during the a warm cycle right at the peak of the 120,000 year cycle. Earth has been approaching the peak of the 120,000 year mega warming cycle for the past 15,000 years, and thus the oceans experienced a 300 foot rise as the glaciers melted between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago. Then only about a 20 foot rise during the past 8000 years, and no rise during the past few years as the earth begins cooling from the 1920 to 2007 mini warming cycle. Earth will experience an approximate 120 year cooling cycle from 2008 to about 2120, then warming to the next mini global warming cycle between 2125 to 2200. It is this cycle that will see an approximate 10 foot rise in oceans...because global cooling began in 2008, it cannot happen during the upcoming 50 years. Regards David Dilley Global Weather Oscillations Inc www.GlobalWeatherCycles.comb

This past Tuesday I was the guest speaker at the local college in Ocala Florida, sponsored by the Villages and Ocala Tea Party Association. I have been conducting climate cycle research for 20-years and made my e-book (published June 2008) available on my web site free of charge so everyone could have access to it. The book is titled "Global Warming-Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found. As a guest speaker, I presented over the course of an hour nearly 50 wonderful slides covering the carbon dixode cycle, natural cycles of temperature and Co2 during the past half million years. I culminated the talk by showing my findings concerning the "Natural Cause for Global Warming and Cooling Cycles". Over the course of the next days news of my "Natural Cycle" presentation has spread like wild fire throughout the Ocala Florida area, with more presentations requested. A couple local newspapers attended the presentation, as well as several hundred people seeking the truth concerning global warming. Of the two newspapers, one reported on the presentation. The other paper, owned by the New York Times (Ocala Star Banner) nixed their article, but did run 6 different global warming articles slanted toward anthropogenic warming and the Copenhagen climate Change Summnit. People in Ocala are so upset about censoring type of coverage by the paper, a video of my 1 hour presentation is being sent to FOX News and Glenn Beck. You can view a summary of my talk can be seen on my web site in the presentations section.

A strong high declination cycle is about 45 percent stronger than mean cycles. The highest declination cyclical cycles would normally portray the strongest gravitation on the earth, due to the closer proximity of the moon to earth. Thus long term cycles (either 9 year or 230 year cycles) would have the strongest values followed by a weakening. We know that oceans have a daily slosh due to the daily lunar cycles, and also monthly and 6 monthly cycles. This slosh may also be in the atmosphere, and in conjunction with the oceans to some degree. Yes we do not know all the answers, and yes there should be major funding by governements around the world to research these links. Regards David

I agree it would be interesting, I have not had time to look at everything. Very busy with other company functions, research and forecasting. Hopefully I can team up with some of you in the near future, use my research along with your knowledge and facilities. Regards David

The monthly displacement of the HP cell coincides with the moon moving northward for 13 days, and then southward for 13 days. Thus the monthly displacement coinciding with the monthly change in the declination (apparent position of the moon above or below the earth's equator). During longer periods, the mean position of the moon is northward or southward for a much longer period of time, with this causing a longer period of displacement of lunar declination cycle. Every 4-years the moon reaching a high declination of 18 to 28 degrees of latitude, with the highest declinations coming every 18 years, and the lowest-high declinations mid way between the 18 year cycles. The jet stream likely had its northern most displacement around 1998 and then very slowly settled southward, witht the greatest southward mean displacement during the past 1 to 2 years. I can try to explain this more as we go along. Regards David

Nice graph BFP. It could also be an approximate 70-year and 36-year cycle. The 70-year being from the beginning of the first positive NAO around the year 1900 to the beginning of the second positive NAO phase in 1970. And then the two approximate 36-year positive phase cycles The 70-year cycles coincide well with the PFM cycles, and the 36-year cycles are between these two goal posts (so to speak). It is good having posts, suggestions, new knowledge and insights posted on this thread. Believe we are all gaining from this. Regards David

Page 11 mainly talks and refers to the U.S. temperatures, with a side note they were similar to the world temperatures. The trend U.S. and global were quite similar, both peaking in the 1930s and after 1990. I was not referring to the upward trend, but the peaks. So on this particular page I was talking mainly U.S. and referring to a clear graph. Global temperatures were explained in more detail later on in the paper. Yes John, in retrospect I could have included the global graph as well, but I did not see a need at that particular point, the global temperatures were used extensively once I referred to the reconstructed 1000 year temperatures later on in the paper. So yes there are some minor differences in the 2 graphs you pointed out, but not enough to discount the twin temperature peaks and what I was referring too. Thank you for looking closely, and if the book were to be updated, I would include both graphs. Regards David

JohnHolmes says...As to your comment about the US showing similar to the rest of the world in the graph-Fig 5 on page 11 then that is really not true David. I accept that the US and the world chart both show a drop from the 1940’s or thereabouts but whereas the US shows the level only returning to pre 1940 by towards 2000 on your graph, in the one below, they can be accessed all over the web, shows it had returned to pre 1940 levels by 1980. this is its link-from NASA Reply from GWO...I am not sure what you mean by "both show a drop from the 1940’s or thereabouts but whereas the US shows the level only returning to pre 1940 by towards 2000 on your graph" Exactly what level are you referring to John? All in all both graphs are quite similar, at least for the purpose of showing the PFM relationship to the 2 temperature peaks (1930s and near 2000).

\North Sea Your statements in the first 2 paragraphs appear very reasonable. Here in the states we did not see arctic highs penetrating southward from the 1980s to about 2007, then a reappearance in 2008-09. The strength and decay of the polar vortes also has a relationship seasonally with the PFM strength, and this is why we see changes from one year to the next, and this is why we see El Nino events approximately every 4-years on the PFM cycle...25 PFM cycles since about 1915 and 25 ENSO events...no PFM cycles without an ENSO. Regards David

Many researchers all around the world are trying to piece a very larger puzzle together. Part of the puzzle is focused on the issue of how the Arctic and Antarctic warm, and they simply do not know the dynamics. For instance; has the jet stream moved north, and if why? Has the northern latutdes pressure cells (high and low) changed, and why and how? Is it the ocean currents? Many questions researchers cannot and do not understand. They do not even understand exactly how the exchange of warm air from the subtropics mingles with Arctic air, or should I say what is predominant. In my research I reviewed computer generated lunar events, sorted relationships of various lunar events such as monthly full and new moons, and the apogeee and perigee cycles (apogee being the moon furthest approach to earth, and perigee the closest), plus the earth's perigee and apogee to the sun. I ran the data back over 1000 years, very time consuming picking out the strongest occurences of the lunar cycles. I then plotted the findings with reconstructed temperatures and looked for the appropriate mean long-term declination cycles...end result being the approximate 200-230 year cycles corresponding to the global warming cycles. All research was done on my own time, no funding from energy companies, governmente...in other words, no outside funding, it was all at my own expense. If I have had the resources, both financially and people wise, much more could be done. End result is, I researched and analyzed findings to be placed in a book, this in hopes of bringing awareness too researchers around the world, and the general public. By doing so, I am here to answer and provide information to the best of my knowledge. But, it is limited simply due to the fact that science does not know how the atmosphere interacts not only with the earth's oceans and sun, and to a lesser extent the moon which very well may be the most important climate forcing mechanism (aside from the season tilt of the earth). Hope this helps some, Regards David

Actually the PFM lunar cycles are much in tandem with the Milankovitch cycles, but not totally with the maunder minimums. Believe it was asked in an earlier post about correlating with solar, but what I have seen the sunspot cycles did not correlate with the cooling from 1800 to 1850, but the PFM did. Maunder mininum correlated with the little ice age, and so did the PFM. Therefore it appear the PFM is a better match to climate than the solar. I can address this and more questions in detail a little later. And with Roger back on, this will be helpful. Regards David

I have attached findings by Dr. Bryson. The top figure is a graph extending just over a month. He found that as the Pacific High and sub tropical high move northward during the first 13 days of the lunar cycle, the high pressure systems also migrate northward. As the lunar declination lowers during the second half of the lunar month (13 days) the high cells migrate back to the south. The overall monthly displacement of the highs is close to 3 degrees of latitude. This of course is only over the course of a month. My theory is that higher declinations over the course of 9-years would likely displacement the highs by a greater latitudinal shift, possibly 5 degrees or so. This was seen in western Europe from about 1998 to 2007 when the mean storm track move from near France to almost 7-9 degrees latitude northward during much of the period. This shift would of course cause the jet stream to being much further north, and the semi permanent highs to be further north. The second picture shows the semi permanent highs centered near 25-30 degrees north and south laitude. The lunar declinations when high are between 25 to 29 degrees north and south. Thus the liklihood of strongest gravitational envelope being in these latitudes...however oceanic tides are greater to the north of this area in the northern hemisphere. Reason it does not show up is because it is a very complex relationship. There are periods where the correlations are with the high declinations of the moon (18 to 29 degrees), and then periods when the El Nino is in tandem with the equatorial declinations (0 to 9 degrees). I found this in my El Nino research (not published). So we are looking at a very complex relationship, as I said. It does appear the PDO has a strong relationship to the PFM cycles, and although I have not looked at the NAO, would expect the same. Regards David PS....trouble getting on my server today, and must travel to the big city for appointments in an hour, so may not be able to answer all questions today. The earth of course has natural ways of mixing warm to cold air, and vice versa. The sub tropical belt of highs transports warmer air into the mid latitudes and mixes with the atmospheric circulation in that general area, and the polar highs which are normal closed to some degree keep very cold air over the poles. However when the semi permanent highs are stronger, they are larger and thus push the semi-permanent lows northward, this provides more mixing into the higher latitudes. During colder winters the semi permanent highs move a little further south, this allows the Aluetian Low off of Alaska to be much stronger and further to the south, this allows more mixing of the polar jet southward. Regards David

The polar jet has been further south this summer, actually second summer in a row and during the past winter. The strong PFM cycle likely caused the Pacific High west of the United States to be stronger than usual, thus causing a strong ridge over far western U.S. and a trough in the east, thus stormy and cool over much of the eastern 2/3 of U.S. This also caused a ridge in the North Atlantic. Conditions are now changing a little as the strong lunar PFM is subsiding. So yes I agree with you, the jet has moved southward. The El Nino formed on the tail end of the strong PFM cycle, and in a different location in the tropical South Pacific than normal. I do expect the El Nino to be a short lived event, and as Roger and I (especially Roger) have said, we expect a strong El Nino in a few years. Regards David

Pete Exactly, there will not be runaway global warming. For several reasons, one of which you stated. And, earth could actually use higher CO2 levels, CO2 is a nutrient for plants. When the dinosaurs roamed, CO2 levels were higher, oxygen levels were higher, plant life was very robust. David

There is quite a bit of literature online concerning the natural CO2 feedback, this is undisputed. But they also do not know the extent of the feedback, and/or the true rates of absorption by plants, earth and the oceans. The lag time of CO2 versus temperature rise is likewise documented, and is undisputed also. The IPCC has not been able to show CO2 rising prior to temperatures. Even since 1860 temperatures were rising anyway. And the biggest undisputed fact is that following each mega 116 thousand year cycle the temperatures fell first with CO2 lagging several thousand years behind. If and I say, "IF", CO2 causes temperatures to rise, then temperatures could not of fallen after each of the 4 mega cycles noted since 450 thousand years before present. Earth would have been in runaway global warming duirng the full period from 450k bp to now. Regards David

Actually we have not seen any causation with CO2 causing an increase in temperature, but rather the opposite may be true. If you look at the mega 116,000 year temperature/CO2 cycles in the book (see my web site for the book), you see that as the temperatures peak CO2 lagging 800 years or so finally peaks also. But as temperatures come off the cycle and begin falling, CO2 remains high for a couple thousand years, then falls. So it is the rising temperature as a causation for increases in CO2, and falling temperatures as a causation for CO2 decrease. This is completely opposite of the hypothesis put forth by AGW. Regards GWO David John, I thank you for your message, and I know you have many question which we can handle one at a time. As I indicated earlier today, Roger and I certainly do not have all the answers, but truely hope to lift this type of research. Regards David

Iceberg and Pete Roger is a better expert on the geomagnetic fields. A couple months before Dr. Reid Bryson died, I asked him how the declination cycles pull HP cells northward and southward during the course of a month. His answer was that the graviational field of the moon accelerates the parcel northward or southward, he called it basic physics. There is very little literatue available on this..if any. I hope Roger can help some, and other's by looking online for information. But remember the field of the lunar cycles is between 18 to 28 degees north and south, and the Hadley HP cells are centered between 25 to 30 degrees north and south. Thus varitions within the lunar declination cycle displays tidal forcing within these latitudes. Regards David

GWO David Response to Roger I have highlighted important statemtments made by Roger. I agree with most of your statement Roger. Dr. Reid Bryson certainly was on the right track back in 1948, however, peer pressure pushed him away from this very important research. And yes, if we could get the same "free media ride" as the AGW view, our research would likely take off. I also agree with Roger that it is a very complex earth-moon-sun forcing, with both the gravitational forcing and geomagnetic variances. But I strongly feel the cycles of the moon is the predominant force concerning climate changes. Roger has spent more time on the shorter daily to monthly variances than I. All should listen to Roger, he has very important information, and I feel between the two of us, we can answer most questions..although some questions will remain a mystery for now, there is very little literature available on this subject. My ebook is a combination of my research and a composite of my research melded with other research. I have tried to tie many things together in order to provide a larger view of the climate change puzzle. My book and research has been posted free for all to see, and this is in hope that it will open minds, pull researchers together to investigate a relatively unknown phenomena. Best Regards GWO David

Please post only 1 or 2 questions at a time so members of the forum are not overwhelmed, and can participate as well. Regards David

Older meteorological literature (in the 1940s and 50s) noted daily atmospheric tides. So yes, I believe these tidal forces are strong enough to cause changes in both the oceans and atmosphere. I see netweather has a new page format since I last posted, so I hope my replies are fine. I know I have not answered your questions in great depth, a lot of questions for 1 reply. Best Regards David

The tropical Atlantic ocean did cool during 2008-09, and the tropical south Pacific was cool until this past month. So it certainly does seem reasonable that oceans have cooled...not warmed.

I was not pointing my mil.d rant at you directly John, so please do not take this personally. It was directed toward posters in general, on all forums, all sites, and on all subjects (not just my subject).