Cycles

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. Best Regards Mr. Dilley GWO

Thought you would be interested in this...hopefully it is correct information, do not always trust information from other blogs NOAA data show a rapidly declining temperature of -0.77 deg F (0.43C) per decade over the last 11 years, with 2008 the coolest year in the series. // The Climate Skeptics who do not accept the whole argument that mankind is primarily responsible for warmin point out the cooling since 1998 is in the presence of continued CO2 growth. NOAA data show a rapidly declining temperature of -0.77 deg F per decade over the last 11 years, with 2008 the coolest year in the series. <http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-U...nge-Review.html

El Nino's occur even during periods of global cooling. Yes it will warm us briefly, then likely be gone by the time winter sets in, so another cool winter is likely.

No global melt down on this global warming cycle...have to wait many hundreds of years.

The latest weekly SST departures are: From the National Climate Prediction Center NOAA Niño 4 0.5ºC Niño 3.4 0.5ºC Niño 3 0.4ºC Niño 1+2 0.3ºC NOAA indicates Nino 3.4 region is now at plus 0.5 degree C. Latest NOAA forecast now calls for an El Nino by the northern hemisphere summer, Much in contrast to their earlier forecast for the fall or winter. The GWO original forecast was about 4 months early on the El Nino, but it is forming on the tail end of the PFM cycle as predicted in the revised forecast a couple months ago.

And we do know there has been somewhat similar levels of CO2 during the past half million years, without man's influence. We also know temperatures peak approximately every 116 thousand years, with reports of ocean levels rising approximately 10 feet in the Yucatan area, all without man's influence. We have heard a lot of news indicating dire sea level rises toward the end of this century. Is this possible? Actually yes if global warming continued. However, the natural global warming cycle is now in the process of shifting to global cooling, this will deter the dire sea level rise. As seen in my book, global warming cycles occur approximately every 230-years, with the warmest cycle about every 900-years. With earth now on the mega peak, it is likely there will be ice restoration during the cooling cycle from now to about 200 years from now, then another less drastic melt down during the next warming cycle. But the dire sea level rises would likely wait for the next very warm cyce...about 900 years from now. Best Regards David

Good paper describes natural CO2 and anthropogenic. Bottom line is that anthropogenic increase is only about 3% of the natural CO2 increase....sure is not much. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spen...-isotope-ratio/

Good try, and I know we will find the percentages somewhere. I am not alarmed about the 104ppm increase since 1850. As stated in earlier posts we are at the peak of the mega 116 thousand year cycles (each mega cycle has about 2,000 of the 230-year global warming cycles. The peak of the mega cycles has CO2 mean levels around 280 to 300ppm with peaks in the 230-year cycles near 390ppm, just like today. We would expect signatures of fossil fuel burning, and at small percentage levels. Would likely see some of this during pre-industrial times due to naturally occurring forest fires and volcanoes.

Do we know the percentage of this small amount? I know it is different for the southern hemisphere versus northern.

As I said, I have admitted to the premature forecast of the El Nino, and my forecast was changed in February and is in line with the other organizations you site as doing a great job. Several other organizations are still out of line with the ECM and GWO forecasts...are you going to blast them? And yes if you had been priviledge to my full forecast and hurricane outlook for 2009 (issued in May 2008) you would of seen my hurricane forecast as being influened by the ENSO this summer. This was for paying customers however, so it was not made public. Now let's get back to global cooling and CO2...we are being distracted from discussing the natural cycles.

Looks like the forecast you just posted indicated warmest in mid 2008 and then cooling, unless I am reading the graph incorrectly it does not show warming that is currently taking place. ECM and GWO have been in agreement since my update a few months ago. The GWO forecast is on my website GlobalWeatherOscillations.com

ECM did produce a very good forecast...again congrats. GWO's forecast was changed after January and in line with ECM's. However the other forecast agencies were all forecasting the warming in the fall of 2009. Thus ECM was the best, GWO second best and the remainder not so good. And right now it looks like ECM and GWO have the best forecast on what is likely to occur this summer. Best Regards David

Iceberg....The ECM prediction you displayed was issued in December of 2008 and my forecast was issued in July of 2008 (5 months prior to the ECM displayed forecast). Do you have a copy of the ECM forecast issued in either July or August of 2008?? Best Regards David

Thank you for pointing out the ECM forecast, look's like ECM had a better forecast than other agencies I saw (NOAA and Scripps for instance). Congrats to ECM. I changed my forecast a few months ago, pushing the timing of the warming of the sea surface temps to the tail end of the PFM cycle, and it looks like ECM and I are in good agreement, unlike some agencies or universities. This certainly does not make my forecast "laughable" as you suggest, and this type of remark is rather rude. The SST warming is occuring on the PFM cycle as I had indicated, just at the very tail end of the cycle. Yes my forecast was a little early, but the one I issued last year is still correct for the ENSO influence on the upcoming hurricane season, and hurricane forecast agencies did realize this influence until this month (a year later than my forecast). Now back to global cooling.....and the problem with the IPCC not recognizing the lnatural ong-term temperature and carbon dioxide cycles.

I certainly would not say that the ENSO forecasts by world agencies have been on the button, most have been calling for a La Nina into the summer but it has already become neutral conditions and the temperatures in all regions of Nino 1 thru 4 are above mean values. "Does this make their forecasts laughably wrong"?

At times we hear AGW people indicate that atmospheric carbon dioxide shows anthropogenic isotopes associated witht he burning of fossil fuels. Question....Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently near 387 PPM...does anyone know what percentage of the CO2 ppm show these isotops??

I am sure we have all read articles concerning "the tipping point". As global cooling takes hold for the next 180 years (for some variations in years which will be warm of course), I wonder if the IPCC will say the "tipping point" was actually met and this caused the cooling? Best Regards David

You certainly are correct. Yes we should clean up the environment, but not in a way to change the natural CO2 increase and production of energy. Clean up pollution in the atmosphere, water and ground....but we need the CO2. It is scary to think that many European countries are going ahead with carbon capturing, then storing it in the old oil well areas of the North Sea. We do not need to capture carbon dioxide, it is actually a good atmospheric gas. Best Regards David

I mentioned the natural cycles and production of oxygen, which is reduced during the earth's colder period. My intention was to bring up the subject of geo-engeering the climate, which would reduce carbon dioxed during a period when the earth should have more carbon dioxide and a natural replenishing of oxygen. Best Regards David

I likewise agree with you "North Sea" and Jethro. There is not just one forcing mechanism, but several working in conjuntion to control the PDO, ENSO etc. The forcing of the strong lunar declination cycles not only correlate very well with these changes, but also with other forcing mechanims such as solar. It is however very likely that the lunar forcing is the Primary Mechanism. Best Regards David

This is not speculation, lots of common sense and understanding how CO2 historical data was derived. If we took today's 386ppm and averaged it in with CO2 levels during the past 100 years...well what would we have? Maybe 300ppm? This is how the ice core samples are done, averaging and taking a mean. Mean values do not show spikes. And it is not speculation that temperature rise first followed by a rise in CO2 levels...this has been documented by other researchers. Best Regards David

CO2 rises naturally during the mega cycles from 180ppm to 280ppm. The reported levels are a mean extracted from ice cores, with the mean taken over a period of 1000 to 4000 years, thus these means do not take into account the CO2 spikes during the short-term 230 year cycles (actually the peak of the short-term cycles last only about 80 Years, i.e. 1930's peak and the 1998-2007 peak). CO2 rises during each 80-year warming peak, then falls off during global cooling. This is why levels in the year 1860 were close to 260ppm, the bottom point of a global cooling cycle. Thus if you took into account likely CO2 peaks during the mega cycles (1 mega cycle is made up of about 500 short-term 230 year warming cycles.... 80 year spikes would very likely be near 380ppm.

I do not know about the Hadley Centre thinking, but it is irresponsible to dis-regard the mega cycles. During the 8 thousand years leading up to the peak of the cycles, CO2 usually rises from about 180 ppm to 280-290ppm. But during our current mega cycle CO2 started out at 260ppm 10 thousand years ago, thus it was already etched in stone that this cycle would see CO2 levels much higher than prior cycles. This is why the CO2 rose 44 to 52 percent, and during the current mega cycle it has risen 48% (260 ppm up to 386ppm). Best Regards David

Is it not true that the IPCC has not addressed the long-term cycles I refer to, and water vapour which is actually a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?

Jethro Good point you brought up concerning the real issue. Why is it that approximately every 116 thousand years temperatures rise over the course of a 10 thousand year period, followed by carbon dioxide approximately 600 to 900 years later. Then both peak for about 1 thousand years, then as temperatures begin falling for the next 60 thousand years, CO2 lags behind by about 1000 years. The crucial point is that if CO2 is the cause for global warming, then why does it lag behind the rises and falls in temperature? As you indicated Jethro, if CO2 causes warming, we would have had runaway warming following the peak of each 116 thousand year mega cycle....and we did not. The 230 year warming cooling cycles and the mega 116 thousand year cycles are a very integral part of the earth's natural rhythm. Like the human body needing rest at night and food for proper energy, earth needs a rest period and then an active period for production of oxygen. During the cool portions of the 116 thousand year cycles, earth is colder with more snow and ice at high latitudes....a rest period. During the warm cycle which we are now in, earth is more active, more plant growth due to the increase in CO2 through the natural feedback system. During this time increased photsynthesis increases our much needed oxygen. If we reduce carbon dioxide during the warm periods, we would also reduce photosynthesis and oxygen...not good. Best Regards David