Global Weather Oscillations

[I can't believe it's not better]

I can't see how 'all the models are wrong', when we haven't been there yet.

[osmposm]

If scientists react in an emotional way to criticism, it is a slippery slope, because it is at that point that objectivity starts to go out the window and a siege mentality develops where bias is introduced, probably without them even realising it.

I'm very suspicious, through experience, of scientists reacting emotionally when their work is challenged.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, Mr S (and also agree that my last para was a bit OTT). However, the point is that on here and elsewhere it is often not their work that is challenged, but their motivation and honesty - in order to dismiss their work without the need to argue properly against it.

I am glad that you are so psychologically secure that repeated attacks on your probity would not upset you: many good scientists and good human beings are not made of such stern stuff. My own grandfather (not a scientist) was dismissed from the civil service at the peak of his very distinguished career; it pretty much broke him. But what did the damage was not that the quality of his work - or even his idiotic and arrogant behaviour - had been criticized: it was that he was accused (and found guilty) of doing what he did for personal gain. He was quietly offered partial restitution just three years later, but was still so angry he turned them down. Foolish, but understandable. He was not officially cleared until after his death.

I agree that this thread has gone way off-topic, and will now exit quietly - though I would still love to know from David or anybody else what they think about the long history of research into climate change, and man's influence on it through CO2 production, that happened before it became the lucrative orthodoxy. What was the motivation of those scientists?

[Cycles]

......... Back to the Intended Topic....

We all need to realize that science over the past decade to 100 years is like a puzzle...placing 1 piece together at a time.

Every piece is very important for the furtherment of science. We have gained great knowledge about the atmosphere, earth, the earth's rythems, oceans, vegitation....and how all interact.

This has not and could not have happened without the meaningful research by all during this time. It is a collection of knowledged pieced together to complete the puzzle.

I commend all researchers and all their hard work.

....May we proceed as a collective body here, learning from each other.

[osmposm]

Thank you very much for that, David. It needed to be said.

[Cycles]

Thank you very much for that, David. It needed to be said.

Thank you, we can now proceed with questions and answers. We had some great input earlier on. Maybe we can discuss cycles such as why temperatures actually fell during the 1940s into the 1970s when CO2 was rising rapidly. Or discuss why the polar jet stream and storm tracks were 4 to 10 degrees north of where they should of been during the very warm period from about 1998 to 2007.

[Mark Bayley]

Hi, i have only looked at this thread a bit however have found it rather interesting from what i have seen. I'm still not very knowledgeable on the weather and is learning all the time.

In layman terms are you are saying that all or most of the warming is caused by natural cycles and we have just finished this warming cycles and should start a cooling cycle? If so when do you think we should start to notice this cooling cycle?

Edited July 24, 2008 by mark bayley

[Cycles]

Hi, i have only looked at this thread a bit however have found it rather interesting from what i have seen. I'm still not very knowledgeable on the weather and is learning all the time.

In layman terms are you are saying that all or most of the warming is caused by natural cycles and we have just finished this warming cycles and should start a cooling cycle? If so when do you think we should start to notice this cooling cycle?

That is correct. We have had 2200 Natural global warming cycles during the past 460,000 years. They come approximately every 230 years and are associated with gravitational cycles of the moon. These cycles pull atmospheric high pressure systems northward, thus shifting the steering currents and climate northward during the cycles.

Every 5th cycle is the warmest...thus around 1100AD and today. There are also mega 160,000 with each 5th cycle the warmest.....we are now in the warm cycle of this, and the other warm cycle was 460,000 years ago when the Antarctic nearly became void of ice.

And yes, we are now coming off the mini 230 year cycle, phase 1 now and phase 2 drastic cooling by the year 2023.

[Coopsy]

That is correct. We have had 2200 Natural global warming cycles during the past 460,000 years. They come approximately every 230 years and are associated with gravitational cycles of the moon. These cycles pull atmospheric high pressure systems northward, thus shifting the steering currents and climate northward during the cycles.

Every 5th cycle is the warmest...thus around 1100AD and today. There are also mega 160,000 with each 5th cycle the warmest.....we are now in the warm cycle of this, and the other warm cycle was 460,000 years ago when the Antarctic nearly became void of ice.

And yes, we are now coming off the mini 230 year cycle, phase 1 now and phase 2 drastic cooling by the year 2023.

I best get my order in for a sledge for then before they sell out, you know what its like after a report of cold weather coming

[Roger J Smith]

Just a note to confirm that I did receive a copy of David's e-book, I think he has done a pretty good job of summarizing his theory on this thread but at the same time the book does give a more complete picture of his theory.

As to what I think, that would have to await a more in-depth and critical look at the contents, I certainly didn't spot any enormous signs of trouble on first reading.

If any of you were thinking of doing your own investigations, by the way, you might want to get more precise periods for lunar cycles because otherwise you will be doing a lot of work with numbers that are rounded off (for clarity, I assume) and assembling data sets of no value. For example, the lunar declination cycle or sidereal period is 27.321661 days, if you were to start studying daily temperatures using 27.3 days, you would be days off within a few years. So I just thought I would mention that in case somebody here has already started any number-crunching for their own interest.

Well, I may have something to report back in about a week or two, may not be around much for a few days as the weather is improving here and I have some plans that will take me away from this internet connection.

[noggin]

Ah, Roo......I don't know about peer-reviewed papers and funding and things like that. I tend to go by my own close observations, an understanding of human nature and my own common sense and these have, over the course of half a century plus, lead me to my conclusions that it is all natural cycles.

Anything wrong with that? There's more than one way to skin a cat, y'know.........

I often have difficulty conveying exactly what I mean, but with regard to my comment above about human nature , I came across this today which sums up very well that which I am trying to say. It is absolutely not intended to give offence or to criticise anybody......if it were, then we would all be offended, including yours truly!

No, it is about human nature..........

................................................................................

......

Leo Tolstoy observed and wrote...

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives".

................................................................................

................................

So, what is it going to take for the "A" to be removed from AGW, and for Leo Tolstoy's above-mentioned "men" to see that it is just the same old cycles that have been going on since time began?

[trevw]

So, what is it going to take for the "A" to be removed from AGW, and for Leo Tolstoy's above-mentioned "men" to see that it is just the same old cycles that have been going on since time began?

proof? <_<

[Roo]

proof? :lol:

Cheers Trevw....my coffee has just gone all over the lap top!!!! :lol:

[Cycles]

proof? :lol:

We have at least 3 people on this thread reviewing my book. They are seeking knowledge and proof. Remember it was not all that long ago that a concensus accepted the theory that the earth is flat.

[jethro]

proof? :lol:

Isn't the onus of proof upon those purporting that something other than natural cycles is at work here? Back in the days of believing the earth was flat, it was down to those saying it was round, to prove the fact. I always though a theory had to be falsifiable to be considered correct.

"So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html

[Roger J Smith]

The value of any valid theory of natural variations would be in its power to assist us in determining the actual state of modification present from our own contributions. This would always have to be within some expressed error range of uncertainty. I am not at the point of saying whether I think this approach has that capability or not.

If some theory of natural variability provided a very close fit in the recorded historical period and in a more general sense to the derived pre-historical values, then we would have to look for any systematic and (presumably) growing errors in its predictions after 1900 or after 1950, whatever period we thought might be affected by additional greenhouse gases of human origins, then assess what the actual modification of the theoretical values happened to be through the period of interest.

Using a different set of variables, I had already noted a steady but slight increase since about 1980 and nothing much in terms of unexplained variance before that, which is why I have often mentioned on various AGW discussion threads my belief that the ratio of natural to AGW contributions to recent warming is on the order of 2 to 1. This is probably higher than most IPCC scientists would estimate, but lower (for natural) than some skeptics assert.

About to be timed out, will resume this later.

[Cycles]

Isn't the onus of proof upon those purporting that something other than natural cycles is at work here? Back in the days of believing the earth was flat, it was down to those saying it was round, to prove the fact. I always though a theory had to be falsifiable to be considered correct.

"So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad."

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html

Jethro

Yes, I have presented my theory and what I consider proof for the TRUE cause of global warming, and intensities of global warming. The burden is now on those who wish to disprove the theory I have presented to the scientific community and world.

For those new to this thread the discussion is about the e-book released about 2 weeks ago "Global Warming -Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found". It can be purchased on my web site http://www.globalweathercycles.com

Or, you can check the web for a news release that summarizes the book...release is titled

"New Research Indicates Climate Similar to the 1800s Within the Next 15 Years: First Stage of Global Cooling Will Begin During 2008-2009"

[trevw]

Cheers Trevw....my coffee has just gone all over the lap top!!!!

hope there was no permanent damage!

We have at least 3 people on this thread reviewing my book. They are seeking knowledge and proof. Remember it was not all that long ago that a concensus accepted the theory that the earth is flat.

GWO - my comment was more in relation to the question of when the A was going to be removed from AGW. I've dug around this thread a bit but unfortunately was not reading from the start.. I have to admit to being initially skeptical of the mechansim you propose as being responsible for the current climate variations. Have you done any quantitative calulations of the gravitational effects to try and prove the possibility or is your theory mainly based on statistical correlation at this time?

Isn't the onus of proof upon those purporting that something other than natural cycles is at work here? Back in the days of believing the earth was flat, it was down to those saying it was round, to prove the fact. I always though a theory had to be falsifiable to be considered correct.

One can use the flat earth thing both ways, you could say that AGW is like the 'round earth' theory, now mostly proven beyond doubt with a few die hard detractors determined to try and prove otherwise. To me the truth is that the comparison doesn't hold, the physical shape of the earth (flat or round) is an extremely simple thing to test once at a certain technological level with no uncertainty left once tested, nor is there any possibility of it being a bit flat but mostly round or vice versa..

I guess the issue is what you try and encompass within a theory.. I would say that lumping everything under the heading AGW and calling it a theory makes it difficult to prove or falsify (without just watining to see) due to the complexity of the system and disagreement over what level of AGW is expected from one proponent to the next, however the building blocks used for coming to the conclusion that AGW is occuring are testable/falsifiable.

E.g

1) absorbtion of short wave em radiation & emission of longer wave em by CO2/methane etc, what frequencies they absorb, how this overlaps with water vapour absorbtion, at what point saturation does or doesn't occur.

2) Increase in atmospheric CO2 (and its cause - proven beyond any reasonable/possible doubt to be us)

etc..

The problem then being (as I see it) that we know beyond any doubt that we are responsible for changes that would tend to force warming. However the climate system is complex with many feedbacks and knowing how it will react to this forcing is impossible to calculate directly. Therefore we move to models to try and demonstrate how the planet will react to the drivers that we _know_ exist..

I believe it is at this point that a level of doubt starts to creep in and debate can be interesting. Is tuning the models using historical data always valid, are other types of pollution/changes going to alter the climates response to temperature change e.g. change the level of increase of water vapour resulting from the Co2 equivalent forcing etc.

apologies for rambling on, should really get back to work

Trev

[Cycles]

hope there was no permanent damage!

GWO - my comment was more in relation to the question of when the A was going to be removed from AGW. I've dug around this thread a bit but unfortunately was not reading from the start.. I have to admit to being initially skeptical of the mechansim you propose as being responsible for the current climate variations. Have you done any quantitative calulations of the gravitational effects to try and prove the possibility or is your theory mainly based on statistical correlation at this time?

One can use the flat earth thing both ways, you could say that AGW is like the 'round earth' theory, now mostly proven beyond doubt with a few die hard detractors determined to try and prove otherwise. To me the truth is that the comparison doesn't hold, the physical shape of the earth (flat or round) is an extremely simple thing to test once at a certain technological level with no uncertainty left once tested, nor is there any possibility of it being a bit flat but mostly round or vice versa..

I guess the issue is what you try and encompass within a theory.. I would say that lumping everything under the heading AGW and calling it a theory makes it difficult to prove or falsify (without just watining to see) due to the complexity of the system and disagreement over what level of AGW is expected from one proponent to the next, however the building blocks used for coming to the conclusion that AGW is occuring are testable/falsifiable.

E.g

1) absorbtion of short wave em radiation & emission of longer wave em by CO2/methane etc, what frequencies they absorb, how this overlaps with water vapour absorbtion, at what point saturation does or doesn't occur.

2) Increase in atmospheric CO2 (and its cause - proven beyond any reasonable/possible doubt to be us)

etc..

The problem then being (as I see it) that we know beyond any doubt that we are responsible for changes that would tend to force warming. However the climate system is complex with many feedbacks and knowing how it will react to this forcing is impossible to calculate directly. Therefore we move to models to try and demonstrate how the planet will react to the drivers that we _know_ exist..

I believe it is at this point that a level of doubt starts to creep in and debate can be interesting. Is tuning the models using historical data always valid, are other types of pollution/changes going to alter the climates response to temperature change e.g. change the level of increase of water vapour resulting from the Co2 equivalent forcing etc.

apologies for rambling on, should really get back to work

Rambling on is quite ok. We need all sides to the puzzle so it can be pieced together.

My theory concerning the displacement of high pressure sytems was proven back in 1948 by Dr. Reid Bryson, whom many consider the "Father of Climatology".

He did a case study which included a little over 500 monthly positions of the Pacific High Pressure Center. In his study he of course calcuated the mean position of the high, then he compared the monthly cycle of the lunar declination to the positions of the moon during each month studied.

What he found is that the moon's displacement either northward or southward follows the declination change in the moon either northward or southward as well. In summary, it was found that the declination of the moon displaces high pressure systems by about 1 degree southward of the mean position during the frist half of the monthly cycle, and then northward by about 2 degrees of latitude during the second half of the monthly cycle.

So it was found the declination cycles with their associated gravitational cycle pulls the high pressure by about 3 degrees of latitude each month. Now remember, this is only over the course of a month. So, if stronger cycles occur for a longer period of time, you would expect an even greater change could occur.

The graph by Dr. Bryson is in my book and my research enlarges his findings by correlating temperatures and specific declination cycles out well beyond a month...actually beyond 1000 years.

Hope I have answered a couple questions for you.

Trev

[johnholmes]

re the above post

was/is there a purpose in copying another post with no comment please?

[Roo]

hope there was no permanent damage!

None at all...just a couple of split-sides (me!) and as for the laptop, nothing that a bit of kitchen roll couldn't handle: would appreciate a warning next time, however!

Anyway back to ebooks, getting rich and dreams of a flat earth!

[Roger J Smith]

John, there are some comments from David added to the quote but it looks like just a quote of the original post from Trev.

I just wanted to report in general that I have reached some conclusions about the research after reading the e-book and cross-referencing with my own data base and research. I will hold off on a detailed report on that until I can clarify some issues with David, but I could already say that I feel that the research is significant although it would need more realistic correlation statements, and I would remain skeptical about the longer-term cycles (those longer than the 925 year or 231 year type cycles as well as shorter ones which have already been identified by other workers).

So, awaiting some discussion on details of the paper for a more definitive statement of my opinion, but generally shall I say "somewhat" favourable although not in a position to say this is all-encompassing so much as significant.

As to the relation to AGW and greenhouse gas levels, I can already say what my position here would be, no matter what the discussions on these details turns out to be ...

You can look for this again in my eventual report, but I doubt that I would change my position on this part.

David's research underscores a general position held in the most dogmatic parts of the skeptic community, that recent increases in greenhouse gas levels are largely natural in origins as a consequence of rising temperatures. It follows from this position that a natural cooling cycle ahead would reduce these levels back towards earlier lower levels. I am unable to accept this entirely because I believe that about half the overall increase is probably anthropogenic, and complications arise from the further belief that some of the man-made effects on climate are occurring through sooty deposition in the arctic. Therefore I would be hesitant to project any of the postulated temperature variations of this or any other theory of natural variation totally unmodified into the future, at least for whatever period this excess greenhouse gas might be likely to reside in the atmosphere before sinking back into the ground or oceans. At the same time, my position on how robust the effects are in the first place, has been generally on the conservative side, in my stated belief that they contribute perhaps one-third of observed warming in the period since 1980 in particular, and less before that. As a result, my overall expectation would be that natural variations would probably resemble any reliable theory of natural variations modified by perhaps 0.5 to 1.0 C degrees for some period of time. If David could live with that kind of range of modification, then we would not be in disagreement on this point. The length of time that this is likely to persist as a factor in the theorized future course of temperatures might be estimated at 30-60 years given the likelihood of cleaner technologies emerging for any number of reasons within 30 years.

So that's where I stand on the shorter-term applications of the research. As to the longer-term (cycles of many thousands of years up to the time scale of half a million years) I have made it pretty clear on several occasions, and would not be easily shaken from this belief, that a more plausible theory of temperature variations already exists from consideration of the Milankovitch cycles of insolation at high latitudes, however, in going over the astronomical data, I have noted two areas for possible further research both in David's work and my own research perspective. In terms of David's research, the varying earth-sun orientations would impact on lunar declination ranges and this might reinforce some of the Milankovitch type temperature reductions especially at cases of low obliquity (earth's axial tilt 21-22 degrees). In the case of my own research, solar system magnetic field sectors would be oriented differently in cases of different precession, so for my research variables, there would be additional indications of cooling at different times in the glacial forcing episodes. So it is interesting that from two different research perspectives there are two different reasons to reinforce the considerable temperature variations expected through the solar radiation changes alone.

My position on AGW remains more or less unchanged. I would not go as far as calling it a hoax, but I think that in retrospect, say 20-30 years from now, it will be generally understood that some of the predictions have been excessive and based on confusion between the strength of signals of natural variability and greenhouse gas modification. With any sort of sustained natural cooling trend the theory could begin to come under growing attack in the scientific community. I already find that the description often heard that it is a theory "already proven and held by almost everyone except a few diehard non-believers" is way too premature and seems to refer to a climate that comprises only the warmest episodes in the past ten years as well as memories of predictions made ten years ago. Reality at the present time is proving to be tough sledding for the AGW express. In Canada, for example, the Liberal Party had planned to spend the summer selling their aggressive new carbon tax proposals, no doubt planning to use hot dry weather as their photo op, but in reality, it has been conspicuously rainy and cool much of the time across the country, and we haven't seen this campaign outdoors except in a few ironic glimpses. So I sense that if the American election is also contested in such Orwellian scenes (confident predictions of disaster made amidst scenes of undeniably ordinary weather) the public disconnect will grow larger, this theory asks a lot and delivers very little to be blunt about it, and its proponents might want to start thinking of toning it down to some more realistic levels or face possible paradigm shift in the near future. One cold European winter could blow this theory apart in terms of public acceptability, so I would be very reluctant to talk about it as being "proven beyond reasonable doubt" -- and I don't care how many "experts" say otherwise, it's a clear case of the emperor's new coat with all this non-conforming, shall we say inconvenient weather.

[johnholmes]

nicely argued case there, as usual Roger, whatever others may believe, you have made you position pretty clear.

tks about the inserts from David as well, I had not spotted those.

I have yet to find anyone, or any group of researchers, pro or anti AGW, that I can totally believe. That includes some of the output from my own ex colleagues as well!

Fence sitter some may call me, pragmatic realist is how I would describe it.

[Cycles]

:blush: hope there was no permanent damage!

GWO - my comment was more in relation to the question of when the A was going to be removed from AGW. I've dug around this thread a bit but unfortunately was not reading from the start.. I have to admit to being initially skeptical of the mechansim you propose as being responsible for the current climate variations. Have you done any quantitative calulations of the gravitational effects to try and prove the possibility or is your theory mainly based on statistical correlation at this time?

One can use the flat earth thing both ways, you could say that AGW is like the 'round earth' theory, now mostly proven beyond doubt with a few die hard detractors determined to try and prove otherwise. To me the truth is that the comparison doesn't hold, the physical shape of the earth (flat or round) is an extremely simple thing to test once at a certain technological level with no uncertainty left once tested, nor is there any possibility of it being a bit flat but mostly round or vice versa..

I guess the issue is what you try and encompass within a theory.. I would say that lumping everything under the heading AGW and calling it a theory makes it difficult to prove or falsify (without just watining to see) due to the complexity of the system and disagreement over what level of AGW is expected from one proponent to the next, however the building blocks used for coming to the conclusion that AGW is occuring are testable/falsifiable.

E.g

1) absorbtion of short wave em radiation & emission of longer wave em by CO2/methane etc, what frequencies they absorb, how this overlaps with water vapour absorbtion, at what point saturation does or doesn't occur.

2) Increase in atmospheric CO2 (and its cause - proven beyond any reasonable/possible doubt to be us)

etc..

The problem then being (as I see it) that we know beyond any doubt that we are responsible for changes that would tend to force warming. However the climate system is complex with many feedbacks and knowing how it will react to this forcing is impossible to calculate directly. Therefore we move to models to try and demonstrate how the planet will react to the drivers that we _know_ exist..

I believe it is at this point that a level of doubt starts to creep in and debate can be interesting. Is tuning the models using historical data always valid, are other types of pollution/changes going to alter the climates response to temperature change e.g. change the level of increase of water vapour resulting from the Co2 equivalent forcing etc.

apologies for rambling on, should really get back to work

Trev

Sorry I entered the quote and it did not separate my answer... lets try the answer again

Rambling on is quite ok. We need all sides to the puzzle so it can be pieced together.

My theory concerning the displacement of high pressure sytems was proven back in 1948 by Dr. Reid Bryson, whom many consider the "Father of Climatology".

He did a case study which included a little over 500 monthly positions of the Pacific High Pressure Center. In his study he of course calcuated the mean position of the high, then he compared the monthly cycle of the lunar declination to the positions of the moon during each month studied.

What he found is that the moon's displacement either northward or southward follows the declination change in the moon either northward or southward as well. In summary, it was found that the declination of the moon displaces high pressure systems by about 1 degree southward of the mean position during the frist half of the monthly cycle, and then northward by about 2 degrees of latitude during the second half of the monthly cycle.

So it was found the declination cycles with their associated gravitational cycle pulls the high pressure by about 3 degrees of latitude each month. Now remember, this is only over the course of a month. So, if stronger cycles occur for a longer period of time, you would expect an even greater change could occur.

The graph by Dr. Bryson is in my book and my research enlarges his findings by correlating temperatures and specific declination cycles out well beyond a month...actually beyond 1000 years.

Hope I have answered a couple questions for you.

Trev

[Cycles]

David's research underscores a general position held in the most dogmatic parts of the skeptic community, that recent increases in greenhouse gas levels are largely natural in origins as a consequence of rising temperatures. It follows from this position that a natural cooling cycle ahead would reduce these levels back towards earlier lower levels. I am unable to accept this entirely because I believe that about half the overall increase is probably anthropogenic, and complications arise from the further belief that some of the man-made effects on climate are occurring through sooty deposition in the arctic.

perhaps one-third of observed warming in the period since 1980 in particular, and less before that. As a result, my overall expectation would be that natural variations would probably resemble any reliable theory of natural variations modified by perhaps 0.5 to 1.0 C degrees for some period of time. If David could live with that kind of range of modification, then we would not be in disagreement on this point.

a more plausible theory of temperature variations already exists from consideration of the Milankovitch cycles of insolation at high latitudes, , the varying earth-sun orientations would impact on lunar declination ranges and this might reinforce some of the Milankovitch type temperature reductions especially at cases of low obliquity (earth's axial tilt 21-22 degrees).

Roger,

In the e-book I suggest that CO2 levels will lower slightly with each 231 year global cooling cycle (beginning in 2023 phase 2), and then increase again during the 231 year global warming cycles. Thus, CO2 levels would not see any dramatic drop for a couple thousand years, the time in which temperatures begin falling dramtically (even in global warming cycles) as the PFM comes off the 116,000 year cycle. We are now atthe peak of the 116k year PFM-temperature-CO2 cycle.

The Milankovitch cycles of insolation at high latitudes is plausible, but only to a point. We had 5 global warming and global cooling cycles during the past 1000 years, a time in which the earth's axial tilt was near 23 degrees...not near 21 degree on occasions. Therefore a change in the axial tilt did not cause the 5 warming and cooling cycles during this time period....or the other warming cycles during the past 5 thousand years.

It is a more logical theory that a migration northward of high pressure sytems by 3 to 5 degrees would warm the mid latitudes during recurring 230 year warming-cooling cycles than a mere 1 degree change in the earth's axial tilt every 23,000 years or so. But, both the Milankovitch cycles and my declination cycles could work in unison during some segments of the long term cycles.

[Roger J Smith]

David,

In fact, the Milankovitch cycles handled the general trend of the past ten thousand (post-glacial) years quite well and are consistent with the warmer climate of the "optimum" period 3 to 5 thousand years ago. I am not implying that any Milankovitch rationale can be used to explain variations since then, in fact quite the opposite, we are in almost a steady-state situation from that perspective.

I've been going over my CET analysis carefully because it does tend to show support for the 4.5 year component in your research, but I need to re-run my filter for perigee after a more stringent calculation shows that the first and second halves of the data are offset slightly, although the signals appear very similar (see my research thread) ... this may give some clue towards longitudinal shift over time as a compensation for the small time variation in the data.

I notice that lunar perigee occurs today right at the northern max event, and this will make the winter of 2008-09 a season of strongly reinforced full moon events especially in December and January. It would be partial verification of both your research and mine, if there were strong warming episodes (near timing lines one and three in particular from my research) at these times.

Let's say that your research were to be accepted with qualifications ... an immediate concern for further research would be the difficult and complex question of implications of varying latitude of high pressure in different climate zones. Intuitively, east coast and subarctic climate zones might show a more direct temperature response than west coast or continental interior climates. You might expect a reversed signal in the Great Basin, for example.

It's interesting that your research focuses on high pressure and signals at syzygy, while mine focuses on low pressure and signals throughout the lunar month as well as from non-lunar sources. Because I have been taking the approach that my own research model is comprised of many different rather small individual signals, you may have suggested ways of slashing the unexplained variance in that model, which as you'll find is composed of many different independent variables.