Global Weather Oscillations

[johnholmes]

Roger you have me lost again no matter how hard I try to follow your ideas,

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.

does this mean a link to warm spells(in comparison to the everage for those months)?

What is/are the timing lines 1 and 3, how do they relate to the moon being full or not?

apologies for what may seem silly questions to you.

[Cycles]

David,

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.

Roger,

One reason for simplifying is that the earth's weather systems are actually controlled by the intensity and location of high pressure systems....the semi-permanent high pressure systems. If the Pacific High is strong, the Aluetian low is weaker. If the Bermuda High is strong, then the jetstream is changed in the east.

And what controls hurricane season....jetstreams, the upper level winds.

[johnholmes]

I am afraid you suggest a very simplistic idea of the weather there David.

Someone else, could equally easily suggest that the weather of the world is governed by the equatorial belt with its high energy due to it having the sun almost overhead for most of the year.

Jet streams, areas of high and low pressure at the surface, all stem from each other.

Everything is linked and interdependent on everything else. Nothing is the cause on its own.

[Chris Knight]

David, would you say that these high pressure systems are influenced more by a.) a greater depth of atmosphere due to an atmospheric tidal bulge, or b.) a depression of ocean/land surface in between land/ocean tidal peaks, or c) some other (please explain) interaction?

Edited July 30, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Iceberg]

Those HP systems are conventionally caused by the the rising and falling of the equatorial generated heat and the transfer of that heat from equator to Pole.

[johnholmes]

yes, much as I tried to say in my post 303 above

[Chris Knight]

Iceberg and John, I don't think either the cause or interconnectedness of pressure systems and jetstream is in dispute here, David's theory indicates that the latitudes of the high pressure zones shift in relation to gravitational influence from moon and sun, as if they were standing waves of atmospheric density, influenced in latitude and intensity, and stabilised by cycles of gravitational attraction from sun and moon.

Thinking outside the box should be the theme of this thread.

I was asking if any mechanism could be determined which would cause or influence the proposed shift.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Roger

Can you expand more on your thoughts re the NMP as it would seem to me that it is part and parcel of the effects of the magnetic field movements of our heavenly bodies. It seems that we have had a NW 'shift' of weather/climate towards the UK from the continent and this movement seems to be within the theories?

Good thread by the way guys

BFTP

Edited July 30, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Cycles]

Iceberg and John, I don't think either the cause or interconnectedness of pressure systems and jetstream is in dispute here, David's theory indicates that the latitudes of the high pressure zones shift in relation to gravitational influence from moon and sun, as if they were standing waves of atmospheric density, influenced in latitude and intensity, and stabilised by cycles of gravitational attraction from sun and moon.

Thinking outside the box should be the theme of this thread.

I was asking if any mechanism could be determined which would cause or influence the proposed shift.

Chris,

I am thinking out of the box, new theories. I do agree that high pressure systems and the jetstream are interconnected. As high centers are displaced by the pull of gravitational cycles of the moon, the jet streams are likewise displaced, thus changing strength and location of low pressure systems. All interconnected.

The El Nino is likely formed as the tropical Pacific High is displaced, thus providing a windshift in the central South Pacific. This diminishes and ends the up welling that normally keeps these waters relatively cool. Then as the high moves even more with its displacement the easterly trade winds shift to more westerly...this results in the very warm pool of water near Austrailia to begin transversing the Pacific as an El Nino....this happens about every 3 to 7 years and causes major disruptions in worldwide weather patterns.

So yes I am suggesting high pressure systems as being a key link to climate changes. I believe most meteorologists focus more on low pressure sytems, at least that is what I learned during college and my career.

[Mondy]

Here is a peer-reviewed paper on why climate models suck.

[Iceberg]

GWO, completely ignoring AGW.

It's an interesting question, is the zone of ITCZ effected by ENSO or is ENSO effected by it.

I think I am right in saying that the generally accepted theory is that it's both but leans more towards ENSO and SST's effecting the position of the ITCZ and the subsequent High pressure cells.

Warm air rises goes upto the tropopause and then sinks due to cooling and Rotation.

The principles drivers of where it sinks are therefore the rotation and how quickly is cools. Would the gravitational effects out way these two principle drivers ?.

Again my understanding is that the PDO acts as a mini magnifying glass to increase the intensity of the corresponding ENSO condition(La Nina/El Nino) i.e a neutral condition leaning toward La Nina will become a La Nina under a medium level negative PDO.

ENSO itself is like a volcano, the pressure builds for a state change above, it can either erupt given a strong signal or leak out gradually, giving a weaker signal, the cap that's placed on top of it can be determined by the QBO, SST's, PDO signal etc. All of the above is why there are regular natural cycles.

I can understand how gravitational pull can have a similar magnifying effect but it's would not be a driver, more an enhancer. Again I can understand the shorter gravitational cycles but still the gravitational cycles would be easily overridden.

[Cycles]

GWO, completely ignoring AGW.

It's an interesting question, is the zone of ITCZ effected by ENSO or is ENSO effected by it.

I think I am right in saying that the generally accepted theory is that it's both but leans more towards ENSO and SST's effecting the position of the ITCZ and the subsequent High pressure cells.

I can understand how gravitational pull can have a similar magnifying effect but it's would not be a driver, more an enhancer. Again I can understand the shorter gravitational cycles but still the gravitational cycles would be easily overridden.

Actually approximate 4 year gravitational cycles do drive the El Nino as stated in my post before this one. A news release is online today regarding an El Nino forecast for late December into 2009....yes, it did come from Global Weather Oscillations. The news release has a great graph embedded. Unfortunately I am on vacation and using a slow speed dial-up today, so if anyone finds it on the web please post it on this forum. It is titled "El Nino Forecast for Late December 2008: Strongest in Over 10 Years Could Disrupt Worldwide Weather".

It is available on Yahoo and PRweb

[Chris Knight]

I can understand how gravitational pull can have a similar magnifying effect but it's would not be a driver, more an enhancer. Again I can understand the shorter gravitational cycles but still the gravitational cycles would be easily overridden.

In the same way that increasing CO2 should enhance the effects of the other greenhouse gases, but can apparently be overridden by other factors?

GWO Nino link

Tiny diagram there, David, could you post it here, bigger, sometime?

Last time La Nina went from -0.5 in AMJ to El Nino by December was in 1976, 32 y ago. The el Nino couldn't be called until February 1977 due to the definition of what constitutes an el Nino/La Nina event.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Iceberg]

Yes Chris Completely agree.

The difference with CO2 is that it is steadily increasing, therefore it's magnification effect is increasing. A negative PDO doesn't mean that an EL NINO is impossible but it does mean it's less likely, and also less likely to be really positive.

I don't want this to turn into an AGW again though. Interestingly how about running a model with increased gravitational pulls ?.

I am not completely closed minded but am still sceptical until a greater weight of evidence is provided.

Thanks for the link.

So if we don't get a moderate to strong EL NINO by the end of the year then the 100% claim is wrong ?.

I confident prediction that requires guts.

[Chris Knight]

Yes Chris Completely agree.

The difference with CO2 is that it is steadily increasing, therefore it's magnification effect is increasing. A negative PDO doesn't mean that an EL NINO is impossible but it does mean it's less likely, and also less likely to be really positive.

I don't want this to turn into an AGW again though. Interestingly how about running a model with increased gravitational pulls ?.

I am not completely closed minded but am still sceptical until a greater weight of evidence is provided.

Thanks for the link.

So if we don't get a moderate to strong EL NINO by the end of the year then the 100% claim is wrong ?.

I confident prediction that requires guts.

It is possible to discuss CO2 effects outside the context of AGW.

I would still like to discuss any mechanism that may be possible to test, whereby a semi-permanent mass of air can be moved a few degrees of latitude over timescales of a few years to several hundred thousands, and what represents islands of stability for these high pressure zones, in terms of oceanic, land and atmospheric configurations, influenced by resultants of putative gravitational cycles.

How do temperature changes, and the heat energies associated with them, caused by these shifting zones affect the next phase of the cycles?

As changeover from one state of the cycle to the next occurs, are excess energies blown off in analogy to Iceberg's volcano metaphor? Same goes for eventful hurricane seasons, or polar melt events?

[Cycles]

GWO Nino link

Tiny diagram there, David, could you post it here, bigger, sometime?

Last time La Nina went from -0.5 in AMJ to El Nino by December was in 1976, 32 y ago. The el Nino couldn't be called until February 1977 due to the definition of what constitutes an el Nino/La Nina event.

Hopefully the attached graph came through ok...if not we can try again

[johnholmes]

size is fine David

[Cycles]

Yes Chris Completely agree.

I don't want this to turn into an AGW again though. Interestingly how about running a model with increased gravitational pulls ?.

I am not completely closed minded but am still sceptical until a greater weight of evidence is provided.

So if we don't get a moderate to strong EL NINO by the end of the year then the 100% claim is wrong ?.

I confident prediction that requires guts.

I have been a forecaster for 40 years, if you do not have guts you should never release a forecast. I do feel very confident an El Nino will occur much quicker than everyone thinks...believe my forecast graph speaks for itself.

And if I am right...?

[acbrixton]

Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world's temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.

Mr Dilley, I appreciate that you are talking about global averages and not minor local/regional averages. Nonetheless would it be fair to expect the CET to respond to your rather stark and bold predictions?

My understanding is that you predict:

1. a 10 year cooling from 2008-2017 with average temperatures declining from the warmth of the last 10 years to the values seen in the 1940s to the 1970s;

2. Thereafter from 2018 to 2022 (inclusive) we may expect to see a short-lived rebound in average temperatures but to levels falling short of the last 10 years;

3. From (and including) 2023 you predict average temperatures to decline to those seen in the 19c (elsewhere you have said that the cooling may mirror that found at the time of the late medieval cooling, say, 1550 onwards?).

The 10 year CET rolling average (1998 to 2007) is 10.45c. On the basis that the July 2008 CET is 16.5, then if the positive anomalies in the first 7 months are repeated in the final 5 months, the 2008 CET would be 10.44c.

If the 10 year average for 2008-2017 is to fall as you predict would it be fair to expect CET values to return to, say, the average of 1951-80? If so that would entail a decade to decade fall from 10.45c to 9.43c [1951-80 CET]. That does rather strain credulity. Moreover, if my extrapolated CET prediction for 2008 is correct, the 9 years from 2009-2017 would need to average 9.32c to achieve a decadal average of 9.43c.

Would it be reasonable to expect the 2018-2022 rebound to see CET values of, say, the period 1979-1997 (i.e. ignoring the 10 most anomolously warm years)? If so that would indicate a recovery from an average value of 9.32c to 9.67c [1979-1997 CET] for those 5 years.

As of 2023 (you appear to argue that the cooling will be sudden and dramatic in 2023 as opposed to a the onset of a marked cooling trend) we can expect at least 19c average temperatures, possibly cooler; for example the mid 19c CET [1841-1870] was 9.14c, whilst the mid 18c CET [1741-1770] was 9.04c.

Assuming that I have not misunderstood your case (apologies if I have), and assuming that I am not being unreasonable in trying to tie in your predictions with the somewhat parochial CET (apologies again), two things strike me:

1. The swings in 16 years (2008-2023) from 10.44c to 9.32c then back to 9.67c and finally to around 9.1c are extraordinary;

2. The imminent 10 year cooling would represent a far more substantial drop than the 2023 cooling.

regards

ACB

[jethro]

David,

I've finally found some time to have a look at this thread; I have to say, from being really rather sceptical of your theory, I'm coming round to the idea that you may be on to something significant here.

Trawling round the web earlier, I came across a couple of things which may be of interest to you (perhaps you already know of them?).

Firstly: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...onForum2008.pdf

Pages 40&44 with an illustration of 18.6 node tide and photograph of the Moon together with "And what is this external phenomenon that that is driving the deviation in the Earth’s rotation rate on decadal to centennial time scales?"

It seems Ian Wilson also is looking to the Moon.

And: http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/climate/theClimateArticle.pdf

"Conclusion

This work has identified a harmonic spectrum from the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle in a number of Arctic time-series.

The cycles identified have a stationary cycle time, but not stationary amplitude or phase. A sub-harmonic cycle of about 74 years may introduce a phase reversal of the harmonic cycles. The high signal-to-noise ratio shows that the lunar nodal spectrum can have a major influence on the Arctic oscillation system, which influences long-term fluctuations in the extent of Arctic ice. The lunar nodal spectrum in the coverage of Arctic ice is a potential influence on the NAO winter index, weather, and climate."

[Devonian]

Hopefully the attached graph came through ok...if not we can try again

David, am I right to understand that you predict both a moderate or strong El Nino and rapidly falling global temperatures for next year "During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world's temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s."?

Now, that would be some combination!

[Iceberg]

It would indeed Dev.

His graph shows a clear correlation and IF a moderate EL NINO does not develop by the end of the year. The theory will be in trouble. If it does then all credit for what would be a fantastic forecast. I would certainly pay alot more attention to the theory.

Below are current forecasts (none show El Nino developing this year).

[Cycles]

Mr Dilley, I appreciate that you are talking about global averages and not minor local/regional averages. Nonetheless would it be fair to expect the CET to respond to your rather stark and bold predictions?

The 10 year CET rolling average (1998 to 2007) is 10.45c. On the basis that the July 2008 CET is 16.5, then if the positive anomalies in the first 7 months are repeated in the final 5 months, the 2008 CET would be 10.44c.

If the 10 year average for 2008-2017 is to fall as you predict would it be fair to expect CET values to return to, say, the average of 1951-80? If so that would entail a decade to decade fall from 10.45c to 9.43c [1951-80 CET]. That does rather strain credulity. Moreover, if my extrapolated CET prediction for 2008 is correct, the 9 years from 2009-2017 would need to average 9.32c to achieve a decadal average of 9.43c.

Would it be reasonable to expect the 2018-2022 rebound to see CET values of, say, the period 1979-1997 (i.e. ignoring the 10 most anomolously warm years)? If so that would indicate a recovery from an average value of 9.32c to 9.67c [1979-1997 CET] for those 5 years.

As of 2023 (you appear to argue that the cooling will be sudden and dramatic in 2023 as opposed to a the onset of a marked cooling trend) we can expect at least 19c average temperatures, possibly cooler; for example the mid 19c CET [1841-1870] was 9.14c, whilst the mid 18c CET [1741-1770] was 9.04c.

1. The swings in 16 years (2008-2023) from 10.44c to 9.32c then back to 9.67c and finally to around 9.1c are extraordinary;

2. The imminent 10 year cooling would represent a far more substantial drop than the 2023 cooling.

regards

ACB

ACB

My forecast for cooling from 2008 to about 2017 does not take into account a rolling average. We will have years coldeer than others and warmer than others, but overall it will be cooler than the period 1985 through 2007. Another little spike in temperatures near 2017 or so will of course dampen the 10 rolling average not thus show only minor cooling duirng the whole period from 2008 to 2023. This is why it is phase 1 cooling.

The phase 2 cooling will be darmatic. Following all global warming events (prior 4 during the past 1000 yaears) tempeatures drop dramatically during the initial 5 to 25 year period...very dramatically and fast. Some scientists say the famous "year of no summer in 1814" was caused by volcanic eruptions. I really believe it was enhanced by volcanic activity but mainly caused by the initial 25 year cooling period coming off the last global warming. If you check my 1000 year graph which displays reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures, you will see a dramatic dip in temperatures as we came off each of the last 4 230 year global warmings.

I see there are a few more posts to answer, will be back in about an hour to answer them.

[johnholmes]

David, another question.

In your e mail book do you show any statistical proof of what you say will happen?

Statistical proof will enable you to decide if there is a direct relationship between the gravity waves and temperature changes or whether, possibly, they are not statistically significant enough to prove your theory?

We used to have a poster on here, I will try and contact him, who was very keen on this proof being required.

Edited July 31, 2008 by johnholmes

[Chris Knight]

David's theory has got me intrigued, so I did a little research of my own. In an email exchange with David, I entertained the idea that the latitude of mid-solar eclipses, averaged over time, may show some correlations to his warming cycles. He said:

The syzygy solar eclipses appear to have some correlation with the global warming periods, and I would expect they would. However, I was not all that concerned with eclipses, but more so with the stronger syzygy events and their declinations...latitude.

I got some data from The Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000CE)http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSEcatalog.txt

Authors: Fred Espenak and Jean Meeus

Source: Based on NASA Technical Publication TP-2006-21414

I had a lot of trouble formatting the long date series so it would display properly in Excel, but eventually got the full series of eclipses into decimal-year datetime series from -1999 to 3000 CE.

I then calculated the mean annual latitude of all solar eclipses for each year, and ended up with 5000 years of data. I decided to concentrate from 1000y BP to 2200.

The resulting scatter plot was rather messy, so to tidy it up, rather than use running means, with their potential to time-shift peaks, I used a Hodrick-Prescott add-in and produced the following smoothed plot.

Basically, when the eclipses go north, the temperature rises, when they go south, temperatures drop.

I thought it was rather intriguing, with interesting correlations for Maunder, Dalton LIA periods, and the MWP. The current 20-21cen. warming/cooling though is not so clear cut. I wonder why?

Anybody want to do any stats? PMs welcome.

Chris