Global Weather Oscillations

[jethro]

Exactly. And that is why peer review is so important, as it allows those of us not qualified to judge the scientific minutiae to trust the findings of a piece of research.

In an ideal world, this is true; sadly, like may things in climate science, this process has been questioned too.

I do wonder what the reputation of science and scientists will be in 20 years time.

[Roo]

Peer review isn't all its cracked up to be. It is open to abuse. Its why certain branches of science, such as Astronomy, don't use peer review much anymore. There are some well known examples of fradulent papers which have manged to go through the peer review process. In particular, 15 papers published by Jan Hendrik Schon which went through the peer review process and were subsequently accepted for publication in "Nature" & "Science." ALL 15 papers were subsequently found out to be utterly fraudulent.

ALL learned journals use peer review: it is the standard (and it is still the standard in astronomy too). And as for dodgy things getting past peer review: of course, occasionally they might, but not in huge numbers and those that do, as your examples above show, are soon discovered. In addition peer reviewed papers tend to come from a community which is constantly collaborating, presenting at conferences and seminars and issuing letters in various journals. Anything dodgy will soon be spotted.

Whatever the minor problems, if it is not peer reviewed there is absolutely no way of validating the research that has been done.

[VillagePlank]

ALL learned journals use peer review: it is the standard (and it is still the standard in astronomy too). And as for dodgy things getting past peer review: of course, occasionally they might, but not in huge numbers and those that do, as your examples above show, are soon discovered. In addition peer reviewed papers tend to come from a community which is constantly collaborating, presenting at conferences and seminars and issuing letters in various journals. Anything dodgy will soon be spotted.

Whatever the minor problems, if it is not peer reviewed there is absolutely no way of validating the research that has been done.

I quite agree on the proviso that it is the first test of a theory. In many ways it is similar to computing where the first test is compiling the source code which checks the syntax to make sure that the source code is actually valid. It doesn't mean to say that it is semantically correct, just that the source code obeys certain rules.

The real test is when (pesky) users try to use the software

[Roo]

It doesn't mean to say that it is semantically correct, just that the source code obeys certain rules.

Absolutely. And it is those rules which make all the difference....

[bluecon]

No. It doesn't.

Look at above chart, particularly the early years. No chance of detecting a CO2 AGW signal because of natural variation (and for other reasons we can go into later) Then compare it to the end ... and that's the result of a 0.02C cumulative signal. Natural deviations dwarf the CO2 signal, even over 10 years: 0.02C x 10Yrs = 0.2C!

I like to think of myself as neither pro-AGW or otherwise, indeed a nip into either garden for a burger off the BBQ before going back to sit on the fence and taking a look around again ... but extrapolating the recent 10 years into some sort of conclusion is, in my honest, and professional opinion, without merit .... for now.

There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emissions and no increase in temps. The AGW theory clearly states that an increase in CO2 will cause a rapid and irreversible temperature increase. The models are all wrong.

Interestingly enough a charcoal barbecue is a far worse producer of greenhouse gasses and pollution than a vehicle.

[Iceberg]

I don't know how many times this has to be said to both GWO and Bluecon.

PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE AGE THEORY ALSO SUPPORT AND UNDERSTAND THAT NATURAL CYCLES PLAY A PART. IF either of you bothered to look at a plotted increase in temps due to CO2 you would see that it is not a graph that only goes up, surprisingly enough because of natural cycles.

Sorry but I 've read a few comments today where this doesn't seem to be understand.

Mr Sleet and Jethro I have tried to talk about the science with GWO but when he not only presents a new theory, but says that huge chunks of climate/earth sciences such as the carbon cycle need to be re-written then it's very difficult to discuss as no evidence is provided as to why conventional science backed up by the work of hundreds of scientists is wrong. The whole point of peer review is to stop crack pot ideas from seeming to be main stream science, it's a quality standard.

Finally snowbear people do not get a blanket denial, I have read and have a great of respect for papers from the likes of Polykov who do not support AGW, but who still manage to produce good science.(somehow he manages to get funding.! )

[VillagePlank]

There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emissions and no increase in temps. The AGW theory clearly states that an increase in CO2 will cause a rapid and irreversible temperature increase. The models are all wrong.

A cumulative 0.02C/Yr is a huge increase in temperatures, isn't it?

Absolutely. And it is those rules which make all the difference....

I bet you asked your hubby about compilers? <_<

Edited July 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[bluecon]

I don't know how many times this has to be said to both GWO and Bluecon.

PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE AGE THEORY ALSO SUPPORT AND UNDERSTAND THAT NATURAL CYCLES PLAY A PART. IF either of you bothered to look at a plotted increase in temps due to CO2 you would see that it is not a graph that only goes up, surprisingly enough because of natural cycles.

Sorry but I 've read a few comments today where this doesn't seem to be understand.

Mr Sleet and Jethro I have tried to talk about the science with GWO but when he not only presents a new theory, but says that huge chunks of climate/earth sciences such as the carbon cycle need to be re-written then it's very difficult to discuss as no evidence is provided as to why conventional science backed up by the work of hundreds of scientists is wrong. The whole point of peer review is to stop crack pot ideas from seeming to be main stream science, it's a quality standard.

Finally snowbear people do not get a blanket denial, I have read and have a great of respect for papers from the likes of Polykov who do not support AGW, but who still manage to produce good science.(somehow he manages to get funding.! )

I have seen no AGW graphs that predicted the lack of temperature increase or as is no occuring a downturn in temps. Please provide one.

[Red Raven]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the hard time Jim Hansen got in the 80's when he first claimed he had found evidence of AGW.

Here's somthing I wrote back on 1992 about it all:

It is not surprising that the politicising of these findings, and the use of James Hansen as an expert witness to give evidence to a Congressional committee, has led to the setting up of the two opposed camps I talked of earlier.

In front of a Senate Commerce Committee on 8 May, 1989, global warming was discussed in order to examine the scientific research issues. Toward the end of the meeting, the final panel submitted their evidence. The panel consisted of Jerry Mahiman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stephen H Schneider of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and James Hansen of NASA.

The Chairman, Senator Albert Gore, Jr. uncovered “censorship” of Hansen’s testament, by the Office of Management and Budget of the Bush administration. This apparent alteration of Hansen’s text was to water down the strength of his conclusions. Hansen strongly objected to this and the added sentence placed in his testimony Modelling Greenhouse Climate Effects.

Again, I must stress that the rate and magnitude of drought, storm, and temperature change are very sensitive to the many physical processes mentioned above, some of which are poorly represented in the GCM’s. Thus, these changes should be viewed as estimates from evolving computer models and not as reliable.

The Bush administration added;

One point that remains scientifically unknown is the relative contribution of natural processes and human activities to [CO2 and methane increases since 1850].

This changing of Hansen’s testimony became the centre of a large scale public debate with Hansen in the middle. As Hansen had been in the press the year earlier over something he had said the members of the opposing camp did not believe the Bush administration had acted unfairly.

On June the 23rd of 1988 Hansen made his famous “99% confident” speech. In front of the Senate Energy Committee, television cameras and journalists he said;

I believe the Earth is getting warmer and I can say that with 99% confidence. With a high degree of confidence we could associate the warming and the greenhouse. In our climate model, by the late 80’s and early 90’s, there’s already a noticeable increase in the frequency of drought.

It is time to stop waffling and take the greenhouse theory and its apparent detection very seriously.

All very good for the journalists and exactly what the environmentalists wanted to hear. But as a scientist he had gone too far. Hansen claimed that “the greenhouse is here”, although most of his colleagues and fellow researchers are not so sure.

Michael Schlesinger, at Oregon State University questions Hansen’s confidence,’

…our current understanding does not support that [the greenhouse has been detected with certainty]. Confidence in detection [of the greenhouse] is now down near zero.

Tim P Barnett an oceanographer at Scripps Institution of oceanography;

…to say that we’ve seen the greenhouse signal is ridiculous. It’s going to be a difficult problem.

At a conference on climate at Amherst, Massachusetts, it was said;

It is tempting to attribute the 0.5°C warming of the last 100 years to the increase in greenhouse gases. Because of the natural variation of temperature, however, such an attribution cannot now be made with any degree of confidence.

W. S. Broecker in Hansen’s defence claims that

...the records of the last 150,000 years found in ice-cores and in marine sediments scream to us that the Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to nudges... .The fact that we cannot prove that the warming during the last century was caused by man-induced greenhouse gases is not the major issue. Rather the issue is that, by adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere we are effectively playing Russian roulette with our climate... .Hansen may prove to be incorrect in his prediction of the potential seriousness of the greenhouse gas buildup, but it should be understood that concerns such as his are born of a deep regard for the future of our planet and not by fame or funding.

Scientists like the attention the greenhouse effect is getting on Capitol Hill, but they shun the reputedly unscientific way their colleague James Hansen went about getting that attention.

Was this declaration straight from the heart or was it a cold calculated manoeuvre, made in order to encourage the inherent scepticism within all scientists? The climatological research world was now looking to prove Hansen wrong, to put him down and discredit him, but in so doing they may turn up the evidence which can be described as “99% confident.”

The theory of AGW has had a tough ride over the years - to say that it has not gone through rigourous testing is, quite frankly, nonesense.

[VillagePlank]

I have seen no AGW graphs that predicted the lack of temperature increase or as is no occuring a downturn in temps. Please provide one.

What about my one on the previous page? It is noteworthy that you choose not to mention the mathematics involved.

[bluecon]

A cumulative 0.02C/Yr is a huge increase in temperatures, isn't it?

Of course over time.

Fact remains the Earth is not warming.

[VillagePlank]

Of course over time.

Fact remains the Earth is not warming.

Well, there you go.

Time is the issue, here, isn't it? I don't think anyone's arguing with the assertion that temps have been flat and/or declining over the last ten years,and as you say, 0.02C makes not a iota of difference over such a period - it needs quite a long time to be obviously visible.

Indeed, such a period of 0.02C of CO2 induced warming, say, would only contribute 0.2C of warming, so the natural signal is going to overwhelm it. This is what we are seeing, isn't it?

Can you, truthfully, suggest that you are capable of discerning that such a signal, of 0.02C/yr has now disappeared on the basis of ten years of evidence?

Edited July 23, 2008 by VillagePlank

[beng]

Well, there you go.

Time is the issue, here, isn't it? I don't think anyone's arguing with the assertion that temps have been flat and/or declining over the last ten years,and as you say, 0.02C makes not a iota of difference over such a period - it needs quite a long time to be obviously visible.

Indeed, such a period of 0.02C of CO2 induced warming, say, would only contribute 0.2C of warming, so the natural signal is going to overwhelm it. This is what we are seeing, isn't it?

This really doesn't stack up with the facts. The PDO signal has been positive for most of the last 10 years up until the middle of last year. The AMO is still very positive and there have not been any explosive volcanic eruptions of note since 1991 (excluding the one in Chile this year). If CO2 was really the driver, warming should have continued at a similar pace up until at least the middle of 2007 - the fact that it hasn't implies that something else must have been contributing to the warming between 1976 and 1998.

If the PDO or solar influence had been driving the majority of the warming, then a flattening from around 98 seems feasible - solar because cycle 23 was weaker than cycle 22 and the PDO because the warm phase had reached a plateau and was no longer warming (or cooling until around 2007)

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the hard time Jim Hansen got in the 80's when he first claimed he had found evidence of AGW.

<snip!>

The theory of AGW has had a tough ride over the years - to say that it has not gone through rigourous testing is, quite frankly, nonesense.

Interesting post. What, though, changed people's minds? It would appear that most people were swayed (and still are) by computer simulations of the climate system. Taking two names from your 1992 quote, Michael Schlesinger is involved in computer modelling, and Tim Barnett said this in an abstract from a 2001 paper he wrote with David Pierce and Reiner Schnur:

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases.

(Abstract available here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5515/270 )

Has there been any significant advance in AGW theory that doesn't involve computer models?

As I have said before, if someone asks you to solve X+Y=10 then you can say that X=2 and Y=8. If X=9 and Y=1 then those values are clearly different but result in the same answer. Is your answer valid? Yes. Is it correct? No.

<_<

CB

[bluecon]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned the hard time Jim Hansen got in the 80's when he first claimed he had found evidence of AGW.

Here's somthing I wrote back on 1992 about it all:

snip

The theory of AGW has had a tough ride over the years - to say that it has not gone through rigourous testing is, quite frankly, nonesense.

Well that all changed when Clinton and Gore were elected to office and took over in '92. Gore purged those that disagreed with the AGW theory and promoted the likes of Hansen.

What about my one on the previous page? It is noteworthy that you choose not to mention the mathematics involved.

You're not serious?

I would like to see something from pre 1998 predicting the temps we have seen coinciding with a huge increase in CO2 emissions.

Well, there you go.

Time is the issue, here, isn't it? I don't think anyone's arguing with the assertion that temps have been flat and/or declining over the last ten years,and as you say, 0.02C makes not a iota of difference over such a period - it needs quite a long time to be obviously visible.

Indeed, such a period of 0.02C of CO2 induced warming, say, would only contribute 0.2C of warming, so the natural signal is going to overwhelm it. This is what we are seeing, isn't it?

Can you, truthfully, suggest that you are capable of discerning that such a signal, of 0.02C/yr has now disappeared on the basis of ten years of evidence?

That is the new theory of AGW which is popping up to cover for the reality that all the models were wrong. Soon it looks as though the AGW theory will be exposed and put to rest.

Edited July 23, 2008 by bluecon

[Red Raven]

Interesting post. What, though, changed people's minds? It would appear that most people were swayed (and still are) by computer simulations of the climate system. Taking two names from your 1992 quote, Michael Schlesinger is involved in computer modelling, and Tim Barnett said this in an abstract from a 2001 paper he wrote with David Pierce and Reiner Schnur:

(Abstract available here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5515/270 )

Has there been any significant advance in AGW theory that doesn't involve computer models?

As I have said before, if someone asks you to solve X+Y=10 then you can say that X=2 and Y=8. If X=9 and Y=1 then those values are clearly different but result in the same answer. Is your answer valid? Yes. Is it correct? No.

CB

Good question and I really don't know. In an attempt to see why at the time I looked at the history of science, particularly when natural philosophy became modern science around the time of Francis Bacon. What I did find was a fault in the 'new' inductive logic which replaced the deductive logic of natural philosophy.

What I am certain of though is that there is no conspiracy, maybe mass hysteria. <_<

[Admiral_Bobski]

Good question and I really don't know. In an attempt to see why at the time I looked at the history of science, particularly when natural philosophy became modern science around the time of Francis Bacon. What I did find was a fault in the 'new' inductive logic which replaced the deductive logic of natural philosophy.

What I am certain of though is that there is no conspiracy, maybe mass hysteria.

While I am skeptical of AGW as it stands I agree wholeheartedly that there is no conspiracy - I've never been one for conspiracy theories, I must say! I would argue that there's a distinct element of Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - taking existing work, with all its flaws, and building on top of it... But maybe that's just me!

CB

[johnny1972]

Perhaps you should ask the Mods the proportions of pro and anti-AGWers whose posts were removed (and/or suspended) before making accusations like that, Johnny. Intemperate remarks have always come from both sides of the argument on here, in my fairly long experience of the forum.

Osmposm

I have watched the threads with interest for a long time on here as well but have only started to post quite recently. The number of posts removed by the mods representing one side or the other is irrelevant - they have still been removed. The point im making is if you support AGW you are on a winner in the eyes of the vast majority on here and many other sites. This is fact and there is no getting away from it. However back the minority like David Dilley does in relation to natural cycles and you're ridiculed on quite a number of ocassions. I see no problem with frank discssion and differing opinions. And like i have said i hope im around to see who will be proved right. I certainly believe in the natural cycles of the world and there are too many unanswered questions in relation to our climate - period !

[johnny1972]

I don't need a pear reviewed paper to see for the last ten years that the climate is starting to cool despite the huge increase in manmade CO2. That speaks for itself.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...nt-ruling.thtml

Bluecon

Another very good article posted. Yes alot of complaints about this program recently. Remember seeing it. Now OFCOM have dismissed the complaints more will now follow only this time about OFCOM !

[Roger J Smith]

This thread is now totally out of focus, in my opinion.

If David's research pans out and these natural cycles exist at the strength he asserts, it will tell us almost nothing about the AGW theory, because these cycles are generally longer and in any case they won't necessarily be altered by the dynamics of AGW to whatever extent that is real.

People are assuming that this can turn out to be some explanation of recent observed variations and will invalidate AGW, but I would caution that a very careful review of the findings would be necessary before that conclusion became possible -- I hope to be able to do one such review as soon as I receive the paper. As I have proposed to exchange research papers I am awaiting my copy at the e-mail address provided.

I will do a review as quickly as time permits (I am more or less on vacation now, although vacation when you are semi-retired is a relative concept too).

I would kindly suggest that various individuals just drop the AGW chatter from this thread altogether, it is sort of like trying to determine who will win the Premiership five minutes into the first game of the season. (of course it's Man U).

[johnny1972]

This thread is now totally out of focus, in my opinion.

If David's research pans out and these natural cycles exist at the strength he asserts, it will tell us almost nothing about the AGW theory, because these cycles are generally longer and in any case they won't necessarily be altered by the dynamics of AGW to whatever extent that is real.

People are assuming that this can turn out to be some explanation of recent observed variations and will invalidate AGW, but I would caution that a very careful review of the findings would be necessary before that conclusion became possible -- I hope to be able to do one such review as soon as I receive the paper. As I have proposed to exchange research papers I am awaiting my copy at the e-mail address provided.

I will do a review as quickly as time permits (I am more or less on vacation now, although vacation when you are semi-retired is a relative concept too).

I would kindly suggest that various individuals just drop the AGW chatter from this thread altogether, it is sort of like trying to determine who will win the Premiership five minutes into the first game of the season. (of course it's Man U).

RJS

Agree 99.9% with you (just the bit at the end Man WHO?) don't agree with !! Anyway would like to see the thread return to what it was originally which was a discussion of David's research and subsequent discussions. Look forward to your posts when you return from your holiday in relation to the comparing of notes between David and your good self. I myself get nothing out of this thread or any other for that matter when its a free for all argument. Hope it improves. We'll see.

[Cycles]

I don't know how many times this has to be said to both GWO and Bluecon.

PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE AGE THEORY ALSO SUPPORT AND UNDERSTAND THAT NATURAL CYCLES PLAY A PART. IF either of you bothered to look at a plotted increase in temps due to CO2 you would see that it is not a graph that only goes up, surprisingly enough because of natural cycles.

Sorry but I 've read a few comments today where this doesn't seem to be understand.

Mr Sleet and Jethro I have tried to talk about the science with GWO but when he not only presents a new theory, but says that huge chunks of climate/earth sciences such as the carbon cycle need to be re-written then it's very difficult to discuss as no evidence is provided as to why conventional science backed up by the work of hundreds of scientists is wrong. The whole point of peer review is to stop crack pot ideas from seeming to be main stream science, it's a quality standard.

Finally snowbear people do not get a blanket denial, I have read and have a great of respect for papers from the likes of Polykov who do not support AGW, but who still manage to produce good science.(somehow he manages to get funding.! )

I beg your pardon! The proof is in the book, just like in a journal. If you do not wish to read a journal to gain knowledge that is ok with me. If you do not wish to see what is published within the book, that is ok with me. It is your loss.

[0000]

GWO a tad off topic....ish but what inspired your research?

[Cycles]

This thread is now totally out of focus, in my opinion.

If David's research pans out and these natural cycles exist at the strength he asserts, it will tell us almost nothing about the AGW theory, because these cycles are generally longer and in any case they won't necessarily be altered by the dynamics of AGW to whatever extent that is real.

People are assuming that this can turn out to be some explanation of recent observed variations and will invalidate AGW, but I would caution that a very careful review of the findings would be necessary before that conclusion became possible -- I hope to be able to do one such review as soon as I receive the paper. As I have proposed to exchange research papers I am awaiting my copy at the e-mail address provided.

I will do a review as quickly as time permits (I am more or less on vacation now, although vacation when you are semi-retired is a relative concept too).

I would kindly suggest that various individuals just drop the AGW chatter from this thread altogether, it is sort of like trying to determine who will win the Premiership five minutes into the first game of the season. (of course it's Man U).

Roger

Traveling today, will get it to you in the morining

Roger

Traveling today, will get it to you in the morining

[Cycles]

GWO a tad off topic....ish but what inspired your research?

I sat down about 19 year ago thinking about what the Primary Mechanism for controlling certain climate cycles could be.

I researched everything from volcanoes to sunspots, with no avail. Then I dug deeply into gravitational cycles of the moon. My initial research was to determine the mechanism that controls El Nino events. More research found that differing gravitational cycles controlled different recurring climate cycles.

One day about a year ago I was conducting research on the El Nino (will be putting out a press release next week with a forecast for the next El Nino). This research uses short cycles ranging from a day out to 18.5 years. Then it dawned on me...are longer term cycles similar to these. So, I plotted lunar cycles for about a 1300 period and found very similar cycles. This led to expanding the cycles and once I noticed how they fell into place with global warming cycles....well, the rest is history.

And I would like to add that I thought it very important to come out with the book now, especially knowing that global cooling is now beginning. It takes a year or more to get new non-mainstream research published in a journal, and this was not acceptable to me.

So, I decided to publish an e-book Peer reviewed as a journal is peer reviewed. Cut out the middle man so to speak and get this very important information out to the world.

If someone would like to help me publish this to a journal, I am all ears.