Cycles
-
Posts
427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Cycles
-
-
Carbon dioxide is high now because of human activity. Period.
To seem to suggest otherwise (as you do above) is not to doubt AGW but to deny the physics and maths of combustion. You simply can't burn as much carbonaceous fuel as humanity has done and not see the effect we have had on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
All Mega global warming cycles that occur approximately every 116 thousand years show rises in carbon dioxide levels of 44 to 52% during the 10 thousand years leading up to the peak of the 116 thousand year cycle.
Earth just reached the pinnacle of the 116k cycle, and CO2 has risen 48% during the past 10 thousand years....right in line with the prior natural cycles.
Remember...the 116k year cycles have "MEAN" CO2 levels beginning around 180ppm and peaking with "MEAN" levels of about 280 to 290 PPM.
The mean values are averaged over a 1,500 t0 4000 year ice core sample, and thus do not show a 100 year spike in the individual warming cycles that peak every 230 years.
Thus, it is extremely likely that each mega 116 thousand year cycle saw co2 peaks near 380ppm, just like today.
Remember, today we are taking instantaneous readings, not a mean value over the course of 1 to 4 thousand years.
Best Regards
David
-
They are,but slowly. Much too slowly. When the truth is finally out,it will be too late - Job Done.
Yes, much too slowly. Perhaps due to hindrances by governments employing measures to stop global warming by decreasing carbon dioxide.
Of course we all know carbon dioxide is actually a nutrient for plants and thus production of much needed oxygen. So it remains very political, just a means to get nations self sufficient energy, decrease energy imports.
But energy should not be based solely on political science. Here in the States the government has the democratic party and the republican party. About 52% of the democrates (controlling party) believe global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, only about 30% of the republican party believe fossil fuel is an issue, with close to 70% saying it may be a natural cycle.
Regardless, we need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and oxygen. And carbon dioxide is naturally high right now.
Best Regards
David
-
From what I have seen and read the public AGW sceptic view is increasingly vociferous in the US - much more so than here in the UK, where large amounts of people 'think' and 'believe' sceptically also, but feel more inhibited at expressing it than in the US.
US forum activity bears this out from my own analysis - and greater and IMO more succesful challenging of AGW view happens there than here. Long may that continue and help to open up the debate and give better representation to the science.
In that respect your own studies on CO2 and temperature correlation, rise and fall are very important. Debate on fact has been in short supply on these threads but hopefully more people will involve in this thread :lol:
With Al Gore heading up the green movement in the U.S. the political scene in Washington has gone politcally toward combating global warming. A lot of money is now tied up in the green movement, therefore very difficult to change the politicians.
I am very surprised concerning the lack of debate on the carbon dioxide issue. The natural rise in temperatures followed by carbon dioxide increases during global warming 230 cycles and the mega 116 thousand year cycles sends a clear note concerning today's natural levels. But no one seems to be picking up on it.
Best Regards
David
-
Hello again David
I think I have seen a documentary on television over here and someone from the ECMWF did mention the subject of jetstream trajectory when discussing how cold winters such as 1962/63 have not been seen in recent decades. I would certainly agree that more research into cyclical movement of the jetstream rather than just assumptions about man made forcings would signify some welcome progress in the overall science -and particularly to correct the bias in the way that the science is presented.
There has indeed been evidence of more frequent movement south of the jetstream in the last couple or so years. For this reason I look forward to the next decade and beyond to see if this trend is maintained and gains the ever greater significance it would deserve. My own view does support a likelihood that this will be the case.
I believe there has more documented in Europe than here in North America. The science of global warming is very politically driven here, and yes in your area also.
I have not had much feed back to date on the carbon dioxide cycles (4 tables in my book). It is interesting to note that temperature and carbon dioxide levels peak every 116 thousand years, and then as temperatures begin to fall toward the next glaciation period, carbon dioxide levels stay high and do not begin dropping off for almost 1 thousand years. If carbon dioxide is the driver of global warming, then temperatues would never of fallen following the 116 thousand year carbon dioxide peaks. In other words, global warming would have been out of control since day 1.
Best Regards
David
-
I think what is of the biggest interest and importance regarding your work is your linked work regarding jetstream movement and magentic forcings, rather than relatively trivial minutae about the timing of one specific el nino event.
An equatorward retreat of this over the medium and longer terms, as you predict, has obvious implications for temperatures and climate trends - and also will influence the potential effects of both nino and nina events in coming decades in terms of negative temp feedbacks, much in the way that it has influenced them with positive feedbacks in recent decades
To date I have seen very little information within the scientific world concerning the placement of the semi-permanent high pressure belt. It is very obvious a change took place in the 1930's and again in the mid 1990's to about 2007. The jetstream across North America has slipped southward during the past 2-years, but we hear very little about this. And from what I undersand, the jetstream in Europe moved nearly 6 to 8 degrees northward during the 1930's and late 1990's to 2007.
Best Regards
David
-
I forecast that it would snow in Dorset in October last year.
It didn't in the end, but did snow in February.
So my forecast was right, the timing was just later than expected
Your science was correct, it did snow during the cold season, just a little later than you thought. But the science was there, it does not snow in June, July, August, September.
The science I base my predictions on is sound science. An usually deep intense La Nina occured , and when this happens it takes a little longer to dig out of it.
Best Regards
David
-
In the final analysis, your prediction of El nino may just be later than expected . I don't think we will see deep or protracted nino events now that the cycle has changed but it does look like one of weak strength will arrive in due course.
But how long till the next nina - and a relatively stronger one as per new cycle as well?
I agree that the upcoming El Nino will be weaker than I first thought, and brief. This would likely lead us into another La Nina possibly as early as the upcoming winter (late winter).
-
El Nino for the summer? Will it greatly afffect the hurricane season. The PFM primary forcing mechanism peaked in December and triggered the ending of the deep La Nina. The PFM is again peaking right at the very tail end of the PFM cycle with tropical South Pacific water temperatures now rising rapidly toward an El Nino. Because of the deep La Nina in the later fall and early winter, it took a little longer than expected for the tropical South Pacific water tempertures to recover. Because of this GWO's prior forecast was early on the development, but is now on track with the PFM peak at the tail end of the cycle.
Check the latest tropical South Pacific sea surfact temperatures at NOAA.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_...e/sstanim.shtml
More information just posted on my website http://www.GlobalWeatherOscillations.com
-
With earth now entering a 180-year cool down (see website and free book), should we geo-engineer the climate? If done at the same time natural cooling takes place, what will happen? Will we slide into a 3 to 5 year extreme cold? Will the geo-engineering of the climate act like a volcano and cool the earth much faster than the natural cycle, with a year of no summer occurring much like in 1816?
Download the free ebook and check out the natural cycles.
If you do not want to download the book, you can click the "run" button instead of download button, and then view it on your computer.
download on the website http://www.globalweathercycles.com
-
But, if the Solar constant was suddenly reduced (for whatever reason) then the Earth would cool - with or without elevated levels of CO2; it would do that now, irrespective of whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Ergo, saying what I've put in bold type is a flawed argument, IMO - the conclusion you draw doesn't necessarily follow??
There is likely several mechanisms working together to control the climate. Many of suggested and studied the solar constant, and it does tie into cycles of the climate, and so does the PFM graviational cycles of the moon.
They all work together (CO2 is just a by-product of warming) with the enormous lunar gravitational pull being the primary mechanism that causes changes within the oceans, atmosphere and the inner and outer core of the earth.
Yes solar controls our seasons with the tilt of the earth, but the gravitational cycles cause huge pushes and tugs on the oceans and atmosphere.
A graph of the PFM cycles in my book shows the response of the tropical South Pacirfic sea surface tempertures to these cycles.
Please click the link to my book if you have not done so already.
David
-
So, you are saying that our addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is unprecedented? Temperatures have risen and temperatures have fallen throughout time, and they always will...But that fact says nothing about what we are doing - we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, in which it acts as a greenhouse gas...
Evidently, temperatures did fall (in pre-human times) in spite of elavated CO2 and its associated upward forcing; the correct response to this 'fact' should be - why? Was its forcing overwhelmed by other effects?
Was its presence merely a feedback?Anyway, we are clearly dealing with separate situations; in doing so, we need separate questions - and separate answers!
If, and I am saying If....CO2 does cause warming, then yes the ending of the mega 116k warm cycles were overwhelmed by the change in the gravitation cycle, and the ending of individual warming cycles within the mega cycle were overwhelmed also.
So, it would be very logical to hypothesize that the current warming cycle will likewise be overwhelmed by the change in the current PFM cycle.
But remember I only said if CO2 is a driver, which it is not because temperatures did fall in pre-human times in spite of high levels of CO2...levels likely the same as today.
David
-
You may be right but if decisions as to what theory is to be believed are to be taken then both sides of the argument should be taken into account and a simple decision made on the weight of evidence suggests very strongly that your hypothesis is incorrect.
Simply put your hypothesis is supported only by a minority of climate experts.
You are correct Red Raven.
And it is correct to say they have not conducted any studies even remotely similar to mine.
-
The truth concerning CO2 and temperatures can be found in the tables within my book. During all 5 mega 116,000 year cycles, temperatures went up first followed several hundred years later by CO2.
It was the temperatures driving the CO2, not CO2 driving the temperatures.
And following each 116k mega cycle, CO2 remained high for a few thousand years as temperatures fell. If CO2 causes warming, then temperatures would never have dropped and we would of been warming for a couple million years.
David
-
A bit of ironic jesting in terms of the up above exchanges but not sure that there is any back slapping going on?
One of the relevances behind the points being made are that the influence of solar cycles have not been weighed up as potential large negative feedback mechansims (ie cooling) as well as the positive amplified feedbacks (warming) that many AGW scientists widely acknowledge. NASA have already had to backtrack on their predictions of cycle 24, if there is an 'I told you so' it is that many of the sceptic scientists have been trying to make the point that the solar min would be more durable than the warmists were predicting. That isn't back slapping, it is making a correct observation.
Many of the sceptic scientists have been ignored in terms of their own theories regarding changes in climate. The type of hypothesis theory that GWO puts forward in terms of a natural reason for equatorial/polar shifts, cyclically, in terms of the jet stream and the subsequent impacts on climate is at least as valid as unproven CO2 positive feedback theory that AGW nails itself to the mast with. Yet another example - what about negative feedbacks with clouds, that the IPCC admit are unknown, as well as the positive feedbacks that they would readily ackowledge on the other hand? What about the shifts in the PDO over recent decades with the long term positive shift back in 1976 and the indications now of a shift to a longer terms -PDO?
So your point works both ways - where is the attempt by AGW proponents to look at both sides of the issue - in an attempt to get a balanced science audit of ALL feedbacks? Where is there any analysis of any of the points I have made above - beyond just claiming that AGW overrides all negative feedbacks? How can this be so when there are so many admitted uncertainties in their own theory?
Furthermore, if you criticise others for lack of 'beef' in their posts, what are your own thoughts in terms of the science and feedbacks etc beyond a perusal of the lack of detail and posting style of others?
You have made some very valid points "Sea Snow".
The IPCC is slowly changing some of their views, and input in climate. They now readily admit there are short-term natural cycles involved, such as the PDO with cooling from the 1940s to 1970s. But to the best of my knowledge, they do not acknowledged long-term cycles, such as the 5 global warming and cooling cycles during the past 1000 years, or the natural approximate 116,000 year temperature and CO2 cycles. To them it appears climate only began 150 years ago.
Best Regards david
-
But the last cooling period lasted 30 years .... and we all know what happened when it ended in the mid 1970s (just as some were, as now, predicting an imminent ice age that obviously never came)
Essan
I agree with you Esan, an ice age is not imminent, although some may say that.
Global warming cycles come approximately every 230 years and peak for about an 80 year period. Ice ages come approximately every 116,000 years. We are now at the peak of the 116k warming cycle and will not fall off this cycle for several thousand years (although there will be recurring 230 year global cooling cycles like the one we are now entering, and the one during the 1800's)
David
-
You're welcome.
The lack of heat over the past couple of years has prompted me to search for the truth and your book has most of the answers.
David, could you give your thoughts as to why your prediction for an el nino did'nt materialise? Could it be because of the prolonged solar minimum?
Higrade
The sub surface waters have warmed throughout the South Pacific and is now prime for an El Nino. Yes my forecast for the El Nino was a few months premature.
Some El Nino events form right at the end of the PFM peak cycle, and this is where we are during the spring. So I would expect the El Nino to form in June. The water temperatues in the Nino 1+2 and Nino 3-4 region in the tropical Pacifc equatorial region are now near the long term mean and quickly heading toward El Nino warming.
So it looks like the El Nino did not form at the PFM peak in January, but will likely be in motion at the very tail end of the cycle around June, which is much earlier than other forecasts have been predicting.
The 2009 hurricane forecast by Colorado State University and Dr. Gray was recently downgraded for lower hurricane activity. Why? Because the tropical winds along the equator have slackened and are ready to change, and ocean waters have cooled off of Africa.
Back in December when they issued their preliminary forecast, they did not know the atmospheric conditions would be changing this soon, all NOAA etc forecasts were pointing towards next fall to winter. But now they are looking for El Nino type tropical winds this summer, thus inhibiting hurricanes.
I do admit my forecast for an El Nino was early, I was thinking it would form a little earlier in the PFM cycle. It now looks like it will still form in the PFM cycle, just at the very tail end. My forecast was off by a few months, and other forecasts were way too late in their thinking. All in all, my forecast was and is correct for the upcoming hurricane season in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Best Regards
David
-
I looked in with a great deal of interest onto the thread regarding this e-book and this topic last year - and very much want to read the e-book properly
I have tried to download it but for some reason I am unable to save it - it says 'I need permission to download this link'?!
Anyway, I certainly agree that it would be ironic if the AGW people started using human interference to deal with alleged global warming (which of course they state was caused by man in the first place) and the result of this is then that we have less CO2 to sustain our crops etc and keep us warm when the results of this meddling further accentuate natural Global Cooling!
Talk about pressing all the wrong buttons!
I have been told MAC computers cannot download the book. Have you tried running it to view instead???
-
Thank you this is a great book which makes alot of sense. So far the past winter has done what has been explained in the book and if it carries on it will be obvious to everyone that its all natural.
The green campaigners are now getting very worried, soon they wont be able to bark out orders anymore. They've had it their way for to long, im sick of it.
Higrade
Thank you for your kind comments.
I am sure many will see it as you do, but the AGW people will not of course.
A very important part of the book is....the CO2 natural cycles following the 116,000 year temperature increases.
Best Regards
David
-
Hopefully they'll wait for 6 years and will be 'obvious' that we are in global cooling....a statement I made on here 2-3 years ago. I was following the solar cycle back then and the forecast is very much in line with your way David.
It was an excellent read anyway...and now free IMO a MUST for people to download and study.
regards
BFTP
They way countries are talking, I do not think they will wait 6 years. Even with cooling they are trying to interpret that it is still warming and ice is still melting.
Imperative to get the word out...wait wait wait, do not engineer the climate
-
For something so persistent I actually find it laughable that 'only' Europe could have had 'different' weather. If the HP belt had moved then this would have a knock on effect. What would have replaced where the HP was before it moved? LP pressure of course and so the ripple would move round. Clearly they are saying upstream affected Europe [La Nina] yet we are upstream to east BUT because it would go against the AGW grain nothing downstream from us would be affected....cods wallop!!!.
Point of interest, since Feb 07 WE have entered La Nina domination [peturbation cycle] and pro AGW are syaing that is why we have cooled....but that artcile says we will warm? Are you surprised?
BFTP
BFTP
That is correct, the AGW people do say the La Nina caused cooling this winter. Or could it be Phase 1 of Global Cooling??
Have you seen the latest news coming from NOAA? They are talking about engineering the climate, possibly shooting pollution particles into the atmosphere to cool the earth......this could be disasterous with earth already entering a cooling period.
E-Book "Global Warming-Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found"
Now a free "Download"
-
Great news, thanks David.
You might be interested in this: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...&start=1156
post 1163
Jethro
Thank you Jethro.
And for anyone going to my web site for the FREE DOWNLOAD..... refresh the web site, there have been many changes.
David
-
To all
e-Book "Global Warming, Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found"
Now a Free download on
http://www.globalweathercycles.com
Enjoy my gift
Best Regards
David Dilley
-
This is a report by Tino Naromi on the web site climate skeptics
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 (02.2008-01.2009): 0.35
cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 0.13 degrees C
Oceans, buyos (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 (02.2008-01.2009): 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 (02.2008-01.2009): 0.08
cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 0.26 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 (02.2008-01.2009): 0.1
cooling from 2005 to last 12 months 1.4 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
=============================
Helsinki 2009, placement since 1910
=============================
January -2.8 degrees C, 34/100 (warmest 1930)
February -3.6 degrees C, 31/100 (warmest 1990)
==========================================
CET (Central England) last 351 years, 2009 placement
==========================================
January 3.0 degrees C, 209/351 (40% of Jan's warmer)
February 4.1 degrees C, 171/351 (51% of Feb's warmer)
Timo Niroma
-
Not sure what your trying to say GWO, tbh.
There has certainly but a much higher tendency for La Nina over the last 10 years. But my graphs are pretty clear cut and involve data since AR4 was written.
Just not sure concerning conflicting information. Depending on the source we hear that oceans and land temperatures continue to climb. Then again, we see reports concerning a cooling ocean, and as many of have seen, cooler winters the past 2 years.
Then the satellite data on measuring the ice.
Just brings concern.
. I don't think we will see deep or protracted nino events now that the cycle has changed but it does look like one of weak strength will arrive in due course.
Global Weather Oscillations
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Agree that anthropogenic is very small. But the most important point is that CO2 levels are always high during the mega temperature/CO2 cycles every 116 thousand years. And, when cooling begins (cooling toward the glaciation periods) the temperatures fall first and then followed by lowering of the CO2 levels. For this to happen, CO2 cannot be the cause of warming. If it was, temperatures would not fall after the 116k year CO2 peaks.
So it just does not make sense that we now say CO2 causes warming.