Cycles

Thank you BFTP I am trying and willing to answer questions...however critical remarks appear to be coming from those who want to be critical, but are unwilling to thoroughly read my book (which is free online). All information in the book has references and are factual, and this includes the natural carbon dioxide cycles. Has no one read the tables on natural carbon dioxide rises? We can post each table for reveiw. Sorry for the mild rant here, but I would like people to read information in the book before providing a critical reply. Regards David

The one from my preliminary work which was not in print, only discussed as a theory at the time. This wa about 14 months before my book was released. The e-book is greatly updated. David

Within what discussion? The theory's document is the original document released in July 2008 and now provided free of charge. Regards David

This is the root of problem. You brought up the comment saying there are old flaws. I reallly do not know where you are coming from, or where you got this, especially because you commented that you could not "find any other internet sources where people have voiced their views on this theory". It looks like something from the past has been taken out of context somehow. We are as you said "going cirucular here". Shall we begin anew as I suggested in my post just prior to this one? Regards David

When this thread began my e-book was only available as a purchase only book. It is now available free for all to download, or view without downloading. I will within 2 weeks have it available as a pdf manuscript on my other web site. Now that it is free for all to view....let's start over, a fresh discussion. We can go section by section in the pdf or book. Because minimal similar research has been done by other researcher's, it is very difficult to prove my theory in regards to findings by other's. My reseach is likely breaking new ground, and not just repeating research done by other's. My research shows the relationship of natural temperature and carbon dioxide cycles with lunar declination gravitation cycles...this research stands alone, and I am not hiding from or behind my theory. I suggest we discuss my findings in detail... especially the past temperature and carbon dioxide cycles. This is unique research and findings, so I will not be referring to other researchers, mainly because very little has been done within this field by other's. You ask the questions on my findings and I will reply as well as I can....have absolutely nothing to hide. This includes the El Nino, and the natural cycles of carbon dioxide/temperatures in relation to lunar declination cycles. Best Regards David

The discussion you keep pointing to was in the year 2007, 1-year before my global warming-cooling book was published. They never saw my research that went into the book, and/or newer research on the El Nino. All in all a very old blog on old out of date research. Best Regards David

And exactly what flaws are you talking about. I remember great support from posters, and very little concerning flaws. Regards David

The graph is the one which I released in July of last year and have posted several times since.... the difference is that this graph updates the sea surface temperatures...the dotted red line is the PFM posted last year (forecast of the PFM) Same PFM graph I have been using for almost a year now...just an update of the temperatures during the past 10 months. Best Regards David

El Nino Update The graph below shows the 5 El Nino occurrences since 1995 in relation to the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) used by GWO. Note the red line which is the PFM and the dashed red line which was the Forecast of the PFM as issued in July of 2008. Note the Blue is the sea surface temperatures (SST's) in the central South Pacific, more specifically the Nino 3.4 temperatures. Note the rise in the SST's following the peak of the PFM. All PFM peaks since 1915 have produced an El Nino.

An independent report analyses on global warming was posted on the climaterealist site (not posted by me-GWO) this is a link to the site http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3538 Section 3.0 is interesting ""Is GW due to natural causes" (check items 13 through 17). The full report is on the link GWanalysis.htm

Looks like the El Nino is ready to pop Roger, likely this summer. I agree with you on the 2012 El Nino. Yes, cooling is still happening and if there is not a major El Nino, this coming winter will be quite cool as well. Figures posted a few days ago, and your figures indicate cooling is well under way. I know several forecasts called for a warm spring in the Southeast U.S., but it did not happen. One of the coolest here in Florida, right after the very cool winter which broke many cold temperature records. Regards David

You really dug up an old blog, 1 year before my book came out. A lot of new research since then. I think people should look at the newer research, and then judge.

Nice to hear from you again Roger. The current CO2 levels are as you said near levels usually seen at the peak of the inter-glacial periods which come approximately every 116 thousand years. My book has 4 table illustrating the natural increase in CO2 during the 10 thousand year period leading up to each peak. It is interesting to see that the prior 3 peaks had increases of Mean CO2 from about 180ppm to about 280 ppm give or take 10ppm. These are increases of 44 to 42%. The current peak has seen CO2 rise from 260 ppm to 383 ppm during the 10 thousand year period....interestingly this is 48% increase, right within bouds of the other increases. The difference with this cycle is that CO2 mean levels began near 260ppm 12 thousand years ago, whereas the other cycles began at 180-200ppm 6 to 8 thousand years before the peak. So, it was already etched in stone 10 thousand years ago that today's mean levels would be near 390ppm. Best Regards David

May 2009 update from: Timo Niroma monthly solar and temperature report: For more information you can go on his site (first link) http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html ALERT UPDATED http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/GLOBAL_WARMING.ppt (mainly in Finnish, but contain language-independent graphs, will be translated in English when time allows) http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/sun86960x.jpg (compares minima in 1986, 1996 and 2007-2009 with 15 month smoothing of the SSN) http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/flux960x.jpg (compares minima 1996 and 2007-2009 with to 1 AU adjusted solar flux) Hadcrut3 temperature values here on Earth: (baseline 1961-1990) Global, ground-based: 2001 0.41 2002 0.46 2003 0.47 2004 0.45 2005 0.48 2006 0.42 2007 0.40 2008 0.33 last 12 months (05.2008-04.2009): 0.37 cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 0.11 degrees C Oceans (SST): 2001 0.34 2002 0.38 2003 0.41 2004 0.38 2005 0.38 2006 0.34 2007 0.28 2008 0.25 last 12 months (05.2008-04.2009): 0.26 cooling from 2003 to last 12 months 0.15 degrees C UAH, satellite (lower troposhere, 1-2 km) =============================== 2001 0.20 2002 0.31 2003 0.28 2004 0.20 2005 0.34 2006 0.26 2007 0.28 2008 0.05 last 12 months (05.2008-04.2009): 0.12 cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 0.22 degrees C Sodankylä in Finnish Lapland (degrees C) ================================= 2001 -0.5 2002 -0.5 2003 0.4 2004 0.4 2005 1.5 2006 0.6 2007 0.8 2008 0.5 last 12 months (06.2008-05.2009): 0.5 cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 1.0 degrees C (arctic!) Mauna Loa CO2 annual increase (parts per million) ======================================= 2001 1.6 2002 2.6 2003 2.3 2004 1.6 2005 2.5 2006 1.7 2007 2.1 2008 1.6 Increase from April 2008 to April 2009 2.3 ppm Helsinki 2009, placement since 1910 ============================= January -2.8 degrees C, 34/100 (warmest 1930) February -3.6 degrees C, 31/100 (warmest 1990) March -0.9 degrees C, 35/100 (warmest 2007) April 4.5 degrees C, 25/100 (warmest 1921) May 11.0 degrees C, 15/100 (warmest 1993) CET (Central England) last 351 years, 2009 placement ========================================== January 3.0 degrees C, 209/351 (60% of Jan’s warmer) February 4.1 degrees C, 171/351 (49% of Feb’s warmer) March 7.0 degrees C, 50/351 (14% of March’s warmer) April 10.0 degrees C, 13/351 (4% of Aprils warmer) Timo Niroma

I agree it may absorb more energy than the typical atmosphere, but now we are talking apples and oranges. The atmosphere only contains about 390 parts per million of CO2, I cannot even imagine what the PPM is in the coke bottle atmosphere is...and the water vapour ppm, and the atmospheric pressure??? Anything under greater pressure is much denser (bottle that did not have the gas released), and this denser atmosphere with carbon dioxide and water would absorb more. Not a real reliable experiment. Regards David

I have also heard of this experiment and do not remember the true reason for the warming. But if you release the gas out of one it would not only release the CO2 but also water vapour. Remember, when you shake a half empty bottle it excites the CO2 and allows it to fiz vigorously, this also allows water vapour to be spewed up from the mixture. And as you said, it also could have something to do with pressure and compression. When you fill a tire with air it warms from compression, this would be the same thing with the shaken bottle which did not have the gases removed, compression and a rise in temperature.....nothing to do with CO2 though as an absorber of the sun's rays. Regards David

After shaking the half full bottle and not letting any gas out, the top portion would have a gas of carbon dioxide and water vapour. Water vapour is 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2...so the sun's heat was absorbed by the water vapour. Regards David

Yes this story hit the news in the States as well. One point in the article talks about people moving because of climate change. I believe this has happened for thousands as years as people and animals moved with the climate. This makes you wonder if the writers of these stories have had their heads in the sand for a very long period of time. We should get back to what this forum is about...discussing facts concerning climate change, and a good place to begin is the myth about CO2 by taking a look at my tables of the mega 116 thousand year cycles of temperature and CO2. And by the way, each mega cycle is made up of about 500 global warming cycles. Regards David

If by chance CO2 is the driver for warmer temperatures, then I do agree with you that we could quicken our return to an ice age by carbon capturing....and the reason I say quicken toward and ice age is because rises in CO2 is only a natural by-product of natural global warming. Close examinnation of the graph you posted, and literature by other's indicate that CO2 is a following gas. What this means is that as temperatures naturally warm, CO2 increases naturally through the natural feedback system. In response to the approximate 116 thousand year cycles, CO2 follows the rise in temperatures to 500 to 800 years...and when the earth begins cooling at the end of these mega cycles, CO2 stays high for nearly 1000 years as the temperatures drop. Oh my, sure does not look like CO2 is the driver of temperatures. Regards David

Thank you LadyPakal And Yes the multi decadel is a component of climate change...likely driven by natural forces especially in light that CO2 and temperature cycles are naturally occuring.

I posted the latest El Nino stats from NOAA on the globalweatheroscillations forum, and their latest forecast for an El Nino this summer.

Thank you. The graph does represent the leveling off of temperatures, which I feel is a good representation. I am not one that says it has been cooling since 2000. Instead I feel it is a plateau or leveling over about a 9-year period. It will take another 2-years or so to show a true downward trend (using the 3-year running mean). Best Regards David

Another good point concerning a 3-year running mean....a starting or ending point is not needed and thus it would more clearly show the starting and ending of the 9-year temperature peaks. Normally an El Nino would signal the beginning point of the temperature peaks, and a La Nina would likely signal the ending of the temperature peak...much like the 1997-8 El Nino and the 2008 La Nina.

It is difficult to have a starting or ending point which eliminates either an El Nino or La Nina occurrence. These phenomena are both part of the overall climate, and they both occur during global warming and global cooling. The global warming cycle had 2 very warm approximate 9-year temperature peaks, one in the 1930s and from about 1998 to 2007, both of which had El Nino's and some weaker La Nina's. So would it not be best to look at a 3-year running mean starting around 1920. This would dampen the El Nino and La Nina and provide a clearer picture of a trend. Unfortunately the running mean would not show the cooling during the past 12-18 months, but it would show the cycles since 1920. Regards David

I have noticed a couple thread comments concerning GWO selling short-term and/or long-term cycle forecasts. What this has to do with the thread discussions and global warming-cooling, I do not understand. I would like to clear up a couple things. Yes GWO has contracts for certain specialized forecasts, mainly long-range specialized forecasts going out 1 to 4 years in advance. Research concerning the El Nino and global warming-cooling is not funded by any organizations or grants. This is an environmental educational service to the general public by GWO and principally by myself. GWO has given the global warming-cooling ebook free of charge for download, this was done in order to inform the public about a possible natural cause for warming-cooling cycles and natural cycles of CO2. GWO did not make any money from this venture, income from the book is in the red. GWO has not sold any El Nino forecasts, again this information is provided free of charge to the public for planning purposes and environmental education. Thank you and Best Regards David Dilley