30 YEARS OF GLOBAL COOLING HAS ALREADY STARTED

[Cycles]

Hi David, thanks for visiting.

I come from a position of skepticism that CO2 is the main driver of climate. As you suggest, global warming causes release of C02 due to factors such as lower solubility in oceans etc. so it's difficult to know which is driving which in todays situation. I think measurements show that the majority of the increase in CO2 at the moment is industrial in origin due to the higher C14 isotope level. (I see you have a chapter on natural and industrial CO2 in your book.) Do you think that this isotope question is a problem for your theory ?

thanks

Mark

Thank you for you welcome Mark.

As described and shown in 4 tables a few graphs in the e-Book, carbon dioxide levels rise naturally during the long and short term cycles. It was actually etched in stone nearly 10,000 years ago that this cycle would be the warmest in over 400,000 years, and have the highest carbon dioxide levels.

Man was not burning that much fossil fuels 10,000 years ago, and 450,000 years ago.

Will come back to this forum in about 8 hours and answer posted questions.

[millennia]

I see the press are reporting an Argentinian ice dam collapse.....never happened in mid winter before.....the glacier it comes from, one of the largest in Argentina, is also still melting in the depths of their winter........that also has never happened before. Who do they blame? AGW of course

It also happened in 1951.

Edited July 10, 2008 by millennia

[millennia]

Thank you for you welcome Mark.

As described and shown in 4 tables a few graphs in the e-Book, carbon dioxide levels rise naturally during the long and short term cycles. It was actually etched in stone nearly 10,000 years ago that this cycle would be the warmest in over 400,000 years, and have the highest carbon dioxide levels.

Man was not burning that much fossil fuels 10,000 years ago, and 450,000 years ago.

Will come back to this forum in about 8 hours and answer posted questions.

Welcome from me as well Mr Dilley - good of you to make the personal effort to log on. Your answer did not cover the C14 issue that was raised and while I'm prepared to accept natural variability as some of the answer for CO2 increase in the last 30 years I'm also quite happy to accept that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is still doing the rounds in the atmosphere, and will do for decades to come. I don't see your theory accounting for the unusual short term rise in CO2 but over a longer cycle as a reaction to temperatures it makes perfect sense. Assuming CO2 lags temperature I would therefore expect we haven't seen the CO2 peak yet, global cooling or not.

Don't know what certain people's objection to buying the book is, what's 10 bucks in the quest for information? Good old Al charged $30 for his masterpiece in this country!

[jethro]

Hello David and welcome to the forum, thanks for accepting the invite.

I don't have many questions to ask, I'd rather sit back and learn first but I am wondering if the switch to cooler temperatures will be a gradual decline or whether we can expect a more pronounced, obvious change of regime?

[VillagePlank]

Hi David,

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

We know the quantity of 'man-made' CO2 in the atmopshere through isotope analysis, and we know that that is increasing. Indeed, it's the very measure of our contribution to CO2 levels. Therefore, - what is the proportion between the two, if you like, and, given the conclusion that it's all natural does that mean that manmade CO2 concentrations, hence effect, are therefore neglible?

[Chris Knight]

Hi David,

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

We know the quantity of 'man-made' CO2 in the atmopshere through isotope analysis, and we know that that is increasing. Indeed, it's the very measure of our contribution to CO2 levels. Therefore, - what is the proportion between the two, if you like, and, given the conclusion that it's all natural does that mean that manmade CO2 concentrations, hence effect, are therefore neglible?

I like a new idea as much as the next fellow, but don't we deserve a new topic for Mr David Dilley's theories?

[Smithers]

Seems, may, etc. Weasel words that allow you to suppose an assumption that has no real scientific backing. Pick any point you like and I'll pick another to demonstrate to complete opposite. Neither approach would acheive anything except chasing one another's tail.

We are all familiar with the idea of a 'perfect storm' - a set of factors that combine in such a way to produce a result where overall effect should exceed the sum of each individual factor. We have something of a perfect storm now - Solar, La Nina and PDO (plus a few I've forgotten off the top of my head) and yet we still record temperatures that are in the top 10% of records. We 'should' be having a year without a summer, a winter catastrophe to follow.

If global cooling were really taking place then the arctic should be seeing little melt. Instead we see a likely new record melt for the arctic and temperatures over land continue to be significantly above any measuring stick you are prepared to offer. All this time you look for a natural cause? The truth is that without AGHG the obersvations cannot be modelled.

Well, you have to consider that solar activity is generally believed to have a 1-3 year lag effect (due to the oceans, I believe). Also, the PDO was only proclaimed to have entered its negative phase here in the last few months.

Regardless, the Nina and PDO certainly can't explain the level temperatures over the past 10 years, as both ENSO and PDO were mostly positive during that time.

... and the statistical and non-linear mathematics complete backup this assertion. Indeed, if we are in a cooling we won't 'know' it for another ten years at least - which will put the see-saw about level against warming/cooling, statistically speaking, should the cooling mirror the recent warming.

I am 'Mr Fence Sitter' and I'd love to see cooling, I'd love to see my kids play in six foot snow like I did as a child, but, rationally speaking (and there's a good definition of exactly what that means elsewhere on this site) there's no evidence to support the theory that any cool-down is endemic.

Indeed, any person with even a slight perusal of mathematics is much more likely thinking it's an example of a step-function. One which can corrected at the blink of an eye.

Time will tell.

The shame is another ten years of stuff like this.

Strangely enough, Dr. James Hansen testified before the U.S. Congress in June 1988 that the latest temperature trends were evidence of man-made global warming. How long had temperatures been rising at that time? About ten years (since 1977-78).

Edited July 10, 2008 by Smithers

[Guest Daniel]

Solar cycle 23 is going to be about 13 years long. The longest since 1790. it’s been known by solar scientist that the longer the solar cycle the weaker in amplitude of the next 2 solar cycles. Solar cycle 24 is going to be very weak. Solar Cycle 24 and 25 should take us up to 2030. The weak amplitude of solar cycles 24 and 25 will likely cool the globe for 30 years. The earth as already cooled over the past 2 years and is likely to accelerate over the coming years. China as already seen their coldest winter for 100 years. Sydney has seen their first snowfall for decades.

As when the earth cools the temperature gradient increases between the poles and the equator. This will make the jet stream increase its speed from west to east. Britain’s autumn and winters will become milder, maritime in the short term. When the temperature gradient continue to increase between the poles and the equator the jet-stream becomes unstable and more likely to break up in to anticyclone blocking and cyclones. The anticyclone blocking will develop from Siberia to Iceland bringing in months of polar continental air to the UK in winter

The CO2 is to weak of a greenhouse gas to stop natural cooling. As when the oceans cools it will absorb all of the manmade CO2 and a large amount of natural CO2

Ice cores show temperature go up first then CO2 follows

The evidence supporting the manmade global warming hypothesis is getting less and less. There is a large amount of jobs and government tax dependent on the manmade global warming hypothesis so there will be allot of political spin in the data.

This is what I have been saying for some time now. the warming trend is comming to an end due to a quite sun and that will have a strong cooling effect on our climate. this may have already began in the summer half. llast summer was the coolest out of a very warm first opeing years of the new century. we had had to record breaking summers in 2003 and 2006 with temps reaching into the mid 30s and with blazing sunshine and clear blue skies. but last summer and this summer appears to be turning out very average with much stronger west winds bringing showers rain and far cooler temps. As for winters I two think that in a few years are even next winter will start to see much colder winters than any time since the 1980s. in future we see a return to biting cold winds with severe frosts and heavy snows that will fall in feet not inches in central and low lying England. that could lye on the ground for long periods. now the cooloer temps will cause massive problems for us with transport house building and farming. If we luckly we could return to the winter climate of the middle part of the 20th century with cold winters mix with some severe ones. But if we are unluckly we may return to winters on the scale of those in the 16th and 17th centures which would do us real damage. That was the time of the last little ice age.

[jethro]

I like a new idea as much as the next fellow, but don't we deserve a new topic for Mr David Dilley's theories?

Your wish is my command Sir; new, separate thread opened here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1287459

[Cycles]

Welcome from me as well Mr Dilley - good of you to make the personal effort to log on. Your answer did not cover the C14 issue that was raised and while I'm prepared to accept natural variability as some of the answer for CO2 increase in the last 30 years I'm also quite happy to accept that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is still doing the rounds in the atmosphere, and will do for decades to come. I don't see your theory accounting for the unusual short term rise in CO2 but over a longer cycle as a reaction to temperatures it makes perfect sense. Assuming CO2 lags temperature I would therefore expect we haven't seen the CO2 peak yet, global cooling or not.

Don't know what certain people's objection to buying the book is, what's 10 bucks in the quest for information? Good old Al charged $30 for his masterpiece in this country!

Millennia

The short term rise in CO2 you refer to is not unusual at all. Remember man has only been recording CO2 via instruments for less than 100 years. This time period is not enough to compare it to ice core samples taken thousands of years ago, or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

If you read my book you'll understand that CO2 ice core sample readings are registered by taking a mean value over a few thousand years, not an instantaneous reading like we do tdoay.

As you take mean readings, any spikes are dampend. Thus, if you have mean values near 300 ppm 116,000 years ago (as averaged over 3000 years of ice cores) there very well could, or would be a 100 year spike well above 300ppm.

Hello David and welcome to the forum, thanks for accepting the invite.

I don't have many questions to ask, I'd rather sit back and learn first but I am wondering if the switch to cooler temperatures will be a gradual decline or whether we can expect a more pronounced, obvious change of regime?

Jethro,

As outlined in the book, global cooling will be in 2 stages. The first stage is beginning now with a rather good decline in temperatures much like what was experienced during the 1940s to 1970s, then another mini global warming followed by very rapid major cooling.

Hi David,

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

We know the quantity of 'man-made' CO2 in the atmopshere through isotope analysis, and we know that that is increasing. Indeed, it's the very measure of our contribution to CO2 levels. Therefore, - what is the proportion between the two, if you like, and, given the conclusion that it's all natural does that mean that manmade CO2 concentrations, hence effect, are therefore neglible?

VillagePlank,

Man's contribution by burning fossil fuels is neglible. It was pretty much etched in stone 10,000 years ago that CO2 levels would be near 400ppm at the peak of the mega cycle we are now experiencing. The CO2 levels 10,000 years ago were 30 percent above mean values (200ppm)for similar mega cycles at the same time in the cycle...therefore, if a mega cycle usually ends up at 300 ppm, then 30% x 300 = a cycle of at least 390ppm

CO2 would of raised to 390ppm no matter what man was or is doing. Also, it is actually not a factor anyway, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and it rises naturally during all the cycles. It is the rising mega global warming cycles that allow CO2 to rise, not the CO2 allowing temperatures to rise.

[johnny1972]

Millennia

The short term rise in CO2 you refer to is not unusual at all. Remember man has only been recording CO2 via instruments for less than 100 years. This time period is not enough to compare it to ice core samples taken thousands of years ago, or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

If you read my book you'll understand that CO2 ice core sample readings are registered by taking a mean value over a few thousand years, not an instantaneous reading like we do tdoay.

As you take mean readings, any spikes are dampend. Thus, if you have mean values near 300 ppm 116,000 years ago (as averaged over 3000 years of ice cores) there very well could, or would be a 100 year spike well above 300ppm.

Jethro,

As outlined in the book, global cooling will be in 2 stages. The first stage is beginning now with a rather good decline in temperatures much like what was experienced during the 1940s to 1970s, then another mini global warming followed by very rapid major cooling.

VillagePlank,

Man's contribution by burning fossil fuels is neglible. It was pretty much etched in stone 10,000 years ago that CO2 levels would be near 400ppm at the peak of the mega cycle we are now experiencing. The CO2 levels 10,000 years ago were 30 percent above mean values (200ppm)for similar mega cycles at the same time in the cycle...therefore, if a mega cycle usually ends up at 300 ppm, then 30% x 300 = a cycle of at least 390ppm

CO2 would of raised to 390ppm no matter what man was or is doing. Also, it is actually not a factor anyway, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and it rises naturally during all the cycles. It is the rising mega global warming cycles that allow CO2 to rise, not the CO2 allowing temperatures to rise.

Welcome Mr Dilley

I am only recently joined this forum. However i have watched with great interest this discussion for some time on this and other forums in the past. Unfortunately on other forums if someone doesn't agree with your views or posted research it got very personal indeed. That aside, i recall 2-3 yrs ago flicking through pages on the internet in relation to GW and came across a site which had posted a report addressed to the US Government. My apologies for not remembering the site but it stated that between 2007 - 2010 the earth would start to cool gradually. Thereafter between 2010 - 2030 a more agressive cooling would take place resulting in winters being experienced not felt for hundreds of years. As has been the case through time governments control their countries and therfore populations. By this i mean governments can scare the population into believing something is happening even if it is not.

Personally i have never subscribed to the GW theory. The world is vast and mother nature powerful and yes science helps to explain alot of occurrences and happenings but the climate operates in cycles and i have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Im sure my opinion my well be slated here but only time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

[Devonian]

Man's contribution by burning fossil fuels is neglible. It was pretty much etched in stone 10,000 years ago that CO2 levels would be near 400ppm at the peak of the mega cycle we are now experiencing. The CO2 levels 10,000 years ago were 30 percent above mean values (200ppm)for similar mega cycles at the same time in the cycle...therefore, if a mega cycle usually ends up at 300 ppm, then 30% x 300 = a cycle of at least 390ppm

CO2 would of raised to 390ppm no matter what man was or is doing. Also, it is actually not a factor anyway, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas and it rises naturally during all the cycles. It is the rising mega global warming cycles that allow CO2 to rise, not the CO2 allowing temperatures to rise.

What extraordinary claims.

Where did all the CO₂ we've produced from burning GT of fossil fuels every year (pretty easy to work out using simple maths) go? Did it simply vanish?

Edited July 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Mr DIlley,

Welcome to the forum, and thank you for giving us this opportunity to quiz you in regards to your e-book.

I am skeptical about current theories of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I believe that the current warming is almost entirely natural in origin. However, I like to think that I am skeptical about all science (that is to say that I am inquisitive and like to ask questions!), and so I have a few questions to ask you.

My first question is this: when you say that there is a "near 100% correlation" between your PFM and global warming/cooling cycles, what exactly is the percentage correlation? Is it 99.99%, or is it 95%, or is it >95%, as in the IPCC report?

Basically I am trying to ascertain how much of global temperature fluctuation you attribute to every other mechanism, such as solar output, vulcanism and so on. Are you asserting that global warming and cooling are not affected by these other mechanisms at all?

Many thanks - more questions to follow!

CB

[Cycles]

What extraordinary claims.

Where did all the CO₂ we've produced from burning GT of fossil fuels every year (pretty easy to work out using simple maths) go? Did it simply vanish?

Devonian,

The natual CO2 feedback system is very complex and produces much greater amounts of CO2 than man can possibly put into the atmosphere. Remember, during mega global warming cycles like the one we are now in, CO2 levels rise naturally by 30 percent during the 10,000 years leading up to the peak. The current 10,000 year cycle has risen 30 percent, right on schedule with the natural cycle.

And.... CO2 is not the cause for rising temperatures, it rises after temperatures rise.

And....CO2 is actually a good gas. Coming off the last ice age 10,000 years ago earth was at approximately the lowest levels for oxygen in the history of the earth.

We need oxygen and oxygen is produced from plants, and plants love carbon dioxide....a natural fertilizer so to speak.

My first question is this: when you say that there is a "near 100% correlation" between your PFM and global warming/cooling cycles, what exactly is the percentage correlation? Is it 99.99%, or is it 95%, or is it >95%, as in the IPCC report?

Basically I am trying to ascertain how much of global temperature fluctuation you attribute to every other mechanism, such as solar output, vulcanism and so on. Are you asserting that global warming and cooling are not affected by these other mechanisms at all?

CB

Captain,

Good question, and very important.

The IPCC is using old science, and with blinders. Their position is very biased due to political influence. They essentially reviewed research only dealing with man's influence on climate, did not review possible natural causes.

A relatively unknown fact is that government grants in the U.S. are not available for natural causes, only for those studies slanted towards man's influence.

It is very political with many researchers within the U.S. Government agencies and unversities essentially being cencured.

Nowto answer your question. When I say nearly 100 percent correlation, I am actually saying 100% correlation. This is what makes this research so important. It is not 60%, which many rearchers consider a good relationship....it is actually 100 percent.

[Devonian]

Devonian,

The natual CO2 feedback system is very complex and produces much greater amounts of CO2 than man can possibly put into the atmosphere.

Right, but the bit you don't mention (for some reason or other) is that if those vast natural emissions were not balanced by vast natural sink of CO2 we'd have been asphyxiated by CO2 aeons ago. So, most of the time natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. We come along, burn vast quantities of fossil fuel producing much more CO2 than has ended up in the atmosphere (because some has been 'sunk') and CO2 cons rises.

There really is nothing to argue about this. We burn fossil fuels, that produces a lot of CO2, that CO2 has a definite isotopic signature, that signature can be detected in the atmosphere. It's a rock solid case - humanity IS responsible for the rise in Co2 conc.

Remember, during mega global warming cycles like the one we are now in, CO2 levels rise naturally by 30 percent during the 10,000 years leading up to the peak. The current 10,000 year cycle has risen 30 percent, right on schedule with the natural cycle.

But, not so suddenly or with the same signature.

And.... CO2 is not the cause for rising temperatures, it rises after temperatures rise.

Odd that the two are in lockstep if CO2 has nothing to do with temperature - no?

And....CO2 is actually a good gas. Coming off the last ice age 10,000 years ago earth was at approximately the lowest levels for oxygen in the history of the earth.

We need oxygen and oxygen is produced from plants, and plants love carbon dioxide....a natural fertilizer so to speak.

You can have too much of a good thing.

[Cycles]

Right, but the bit you don't mention (for some reason or other) is that if those vast natural emissions were not balanced by vast natural sink of CO2 we'd have been asphyxiated by CO2 aeons ago. So, most of the time natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks. We come along, burn vast quantities of fossil fuel producing much more CO2 than has ended up in the atmosphere (because some has been 'sunk') and CO2 cons rises.

There really is nothing to argue about this. We burn fossil fuels, that produces a lot of CO2, that CO2 has a definite isotopic signature, that signature can be detected in the atmosphere. It's a rock solid case - humanity IS responsible for the rise in Co2 conc.

But, not so suddenly or with the same signature.

Odd that the two are in lockstep if CO2 has nothing to do with temperature - no?

Yes we do have natural sinks aborbing CO2, this is one reason we have a natural feedback of CO2 when the ice sheets and snow packs melt during global warmings.

And how do you know this has not happened rapidly during 100-year global warming episodes in the past. We did not have instruments 1000 years ago, so we take mean readings from ice cores averaged over a couple thousand years. This process dampens the peaks.

First you need to read my book. How diid CO2 levels increase by 50 percent in the 10,000 years leading up to the mega cycle paek today, 116,000 years ago, 230k years ago, 340k years ago if man is the culprit?

What was man doing 116k years ago? 230K years ago? 340k years ago?

I am sorry, but it is a lock that CO2 rises are natural and have nothing to do with man.

[Devonian]

And how do you know this has not happened rapidly during 100-year global warming episodes in the past. We did not have instruments 1000 years ago, so we take mean readings from ice cores averaged over a couple thousand years. This process dampens the peaks.

Trouble is you're making an unknown into a known - it's one or the other not both of them.

[Cycles]

Trouble is you're making an unknown into a known - it's one or the other not both of them.

I would actually say you are making the current CO2 spike into "it has never happened before".

Question for you...If CO2 is the cause for the global warming cycle (that is now ending), then what caused the 2200 global warming cycles during the past 450K years.

And....the Antarctic became nearly void of ice 450k years ago...did man burn fossil fuels then?

[bluecon]

What extraordinary claims.

Where did all the CO₂ we've produced from burning GT of fossil fuels every year (pretty easy to work out using simple maths) go? Did it simply vanish?

I am sitting right now on hundreds of feet of limestone rock. The limestone and the trees and most other things including your body are made from carbon. It doesn't simply vanish.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Captain,

Good question, and very important.

The IPCC is using old science, and with blinders. Their position is very biased due to political influence. They essentially reviewed research only dealing with man's influence on climate, did not review possible natural causes.

A relatively unknown fact is that government grants in the U.S. are not available for natural causes, only for those studies slanted towards man's influence.

It is very political with many researchers within the U.S. Government agencies and unversities essentially being cencured.

Nowto answer your question. When I say nearly 100 percent correlation, I am actually saying 100% correlation. This is what makes this research so important. It is not 60%, which many rearchers consider a good relationship....it is actually 100 percent.

Thanks for getting back to me

If I may just quickly go over this again - you're PFM is essentially fluctuating lunar gravitational influence. You are saying that global warming cycles over the past several thousand years are 100% correlated with these lunar fluctuations.

So are you saying that, for example, the effect of varying solar output on our climate is non-existant? If the moon is entirely responsible for warming and cooling cycles then the Sun must have no influence.

And yet solar output correlates with warming and cooling cycles quite nicely (at least up until the mid-80s), So is this apparent correlation simply a red herring?

Cheers,

CB

Edited July 11, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[johnholmes]

Funny you should mention that, CB. Do you believe in coincidences?

I have just been looking at network routing for various applications (which, of course, shall remain a secret!) and one of the key parameters is how the hell do you reference a point on the globe when the surface area of Lat/Long changes depending on where you are. ie how do you get a uniform grid?

Loads of different ways of doing it, and I'm trying to beast my way through them now.

I wonder what method climate models use?

e mail the Met O they should be able to tell you.

I do remember trying to get my head round just the equations of motion, x, y, z axis then time, and the fact that all four were on a rotating frame.

Nearly as bad when flying with the RAF navigator students and trying to follow the 'old fashioned' way of finding where you are in an aircraft moving over the globes surface and attempting to decide what the actual wind speed and direction is in relation to the aircraft position.

But back to my first comment, I'm sure UK Met will answer your query.

[Smithers]

Odd that the two are in lockstep if CO2 has nothing to do with temperature - no?

I would just like to address this statement. Earth's temperatures have been in an overall rising trend for quite awhile (thousands and thousands of years), and we've only recently been able to accurately track the rise in CO2. In addition, the globe began to rise out of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and this rise continued through the 1800s, and then 1900s. CO2 did not start to rise appreciably until the early 1900s. So even in this short time period, a lag can be seen.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Smithers

[Cycles]

I would just like to address this statement. Earth's temperatures have been in an overall rising trend for quite awhile (thousands and thousands of years), and we've only recently been able to accurately track the rise in CO2. In addition, the globe began to rise out of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and this rise continued through the 1800s, and then 1900s. CO2 did not start to rise appreciably until the early 1900s. So even in this short time period, a lag can be seen.

Actually we had a rather warm global warming near 1100AD, well before man began burning fossil fuels.

Will be bloggin over at the thread called Global Weather Oscillations. This thread was started a little while ago, please join us.

David

[Devonian]

I am sitting right now on hundreds of feet of limestone rock. The limestone and the trees and most other things including your body are made from carbon. It doesn't simply vanish.

I know.

So, where did all the CO₂ put out by burning fossil fuels go? According to David not into the atmosphere since he is saying our effect on atmospheric CO₂ has been 'negligible'? So, where did it go? And if not into the atmosphere where has the extra CO₂ form pre industrial concentrations of ~280pp to the now ~385ppm come from?

I would just like to address this statement. Earth's temperatures have been in an overall rising trend for quite awhile (thousands and thousands of years), and we've only recently been able to accurately track the rise in CO2. In addition, the globe began to rise out of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and this rise continued through the 1800s, and then 1900s. CO2 did not start to rise appreciably until the early 1900s. So even in this short time period, a lag can be seen.

Is CO₂ a ghg?

Edited July 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Smithers]

Is CO₂ a ghg?

Of course. I was just stating the observed facts in relation to your comment that temperature and CO2 are rising "in lockstep".