Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Global Weather Oscillations


jethro

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
Hi, just joining the discussion as another researcher in this general field.

My results show that the Moon is a significant variable in atmospheric forcing but not the only external influence. This is why one can find various other cycles that are not related to the lunar orbit. For example, the large QBO cycle of about 27 months is probably related to Earth-Mars interactions and not to the Moon.

I wonder if you could describe in simple terms what causes a 231 year cycle (or 231.25 from the context of your abstract)? I am aware of cycles of 8.86 years, 18.6 years and 186 years in the lunar orbit, but nothing periodic at 231 years. In fact, at 231 years, the Moon is at the opposite end of its 18.6 year declination cycle. For example, this cycle reached a max in 2006. Going back 231 years, the Moon's declination range was at a mnimum in 1777.

The statements about much longer cycles are also quite obscure with relation to the Moon per se. Milankovitch cycles that are generally accepted as primary drivers of large-scale glacial cycles (23,000 yr, 41,000 yr and 100,000 yr) are of course related to the earth-Sun orbital variations over time, such as precession, eccentricity and obliquity. The Moon presumably maintains its orientation to the earth throughout these cycles and so how would the Moon be driving these longer-term cycles -- I think you will find that varying amounts of solar radiation are driving these large-scale variations.

Now, as to cycles of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, this is all very well and basically accepted by geologists on the longer time scale with respect to the aforementioned long-term cycles, but in the current era we have the addition of man-made greenhouse gases which are not governed by temperature trends so much as being independent of them or having a slight causal feedback on them. So even if the rest of the theory is true, have you made any allowances for the continued existence of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the foreseeable future, or will these remain in a naturally cooling global climate?

Your abstract jumps right from Bryson (1948) to your own work but in fact two generations of researchers including myself have been trying to gain publication (the normal way) -- I have also self-published but this does not count in the scientific community except where they have to deal with the practical consequences of the theories coming to the attention of the press or other scientists. We call this blacklisting in Canada, perhaps in America it is known as quality control or turf protection for Al Gore.

I can tell you that beyond your four kindly reviewers (who have now placed their professional futures on the line perhaps unwittingly) you will find it a lifetime's frustrating work to gain any sort of peer review on a larger scale, and you can get ready to be called all sorts of rather insulting names. However, you can expect a hostile review even from someone as sympathetic as myself if you try to disguise the Milankovitch cycles as part of some 100% accurate lunar model, this will only make the task of serious researchers even harder because we've gone through this "cycle" before, it has four component parts:

a. Vague claims of 100% accuracy

b. Attempts to shovel all complexities into one simple theoretical framework (the magic equation)

c. Refusal to tackle thorny questions of day to day, week to week and month to month variability

d. No recognition of regional variations, the "all regions the same" over-simplification

Not that the IPCC is doing any better, they have also fallen into all four of these traps. :D

Roger, I believe 231 years is approximately the period for the earth-moon-sun apsidal cycles to align. Perigee and perihelion to coincide. 3062 anomalistic months. But it is not exact, and drifts over time like all astronomical cycles do.

Another factoid:

Dee-Khayyam calendar has a 231-year cycle. Leap week adaptation of John Dee's leap day cycle, with 41 smoothly spread leap years per 231 years = 7 × 33 years (231 is divisible by 3, 7, 11, 21, 33, 77, of which 3, 7 and 11 are prime) [cycle has 84371 days, prime divisors are 7, 17, 709].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

David,

With today's modern technology of satellites it is possible to monitor, measure and track high pressure weather systems; how is it possible to gauge this, both retrospectively and historically for long periods of time?

Have you used proxy measurements in order to measure this, if so, of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
Hi, just joining the discussion as another researcher in this general field.

My results show that the Moon is a significant variable in atmospheric forcing but not the only external influence. This is why one can find various other cycles that are not related to the lunar orbit. For example, the large QBO cycle of about 27 months is probably related to Earth-Mars interactions and not to the Moon.

I wonder if you could describe in simple terms what causes a 231 year cycle (or 231.25 from the context of your abstract)? I am aware of cycles of 8.86 years, 18.6 years and 186 years in the lunar orbit, but nothing periodic at 231 years. In fact, at 231 years, the Moon is at the opposite end of its 18.6 year declination cycle. For example, this cycle reached a max in 2006. Going back 231 years, the Moon's declination range was at a mnimum in 1777.

The statements about much longer cycles are also quite obscure with relation to the Moon per se. Milankovitch cycles that are generally accepted as primary drivers of large-scale glacial cycles (23,000 yr, 41,000 yr and 100,000 yr) are of course related to the earth-Sun orbital variations over time, such as precession, eccentricity and obliquity. The Moon presumably maintains its orientation to the earth throughout these cycles and so how would the Moon be driving these longer-term cycles -- I think you will find that varying amounts of solar radiation are driving these large-scale variations.

Now, as to cycles of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, this is all very well and basically accepted by geologists on the longer time scale with respect to the aforementioned long-term cycles, but in the current era we have the addition of man-made greenhouse gases which are not governed by temperature trends so much as being independent of them or having a slight causal feedback on them. So even if the rest of the theory is true, have you made any allowances for the continued existence of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the foreseeable future, or will these remain in a naturally cooling global climate?

Your abstract jumps right from Bryson (1948) to your own work but in fact two generations of researchers including myself have been trying to gain publication (the normal way) -- I have also self-published but this does not count in the scientific community except where they have to deal with the practical consequences of the theories coming to the attention of the press or other scientists. We call this blacklisting in Canada, perhaps in America it is known as quality control or turf protection for Al Gore.

I can tell you that beyond your four kindly reviewers (who have now placed their professional futures on the line perhaps unwittingly) you will find it a lifetime's frustrating work to gain any sort of peer review on a larger scale, and you can get ready to be called all sorts of rather insulting names. However, you can expect a hostile review even from someone as sympathetic as myself if you try to disguise the Milankovitch cycles as part of some 100% accurate lunar model, this will only make the task of serious researchers even harder because we've gone through this "cycle" before, it has four component parts:

a. Vague claims of 100% accuracy

b. Attempts to shovel all complexities into one simple theoretical framework (the magic equation)

c. Refusal to tackle thorny questions of day to day, week to week and month to month variability

d. No recognition of regional variations, the "all regions the same" over-simplification

Not that the IPCC is doing any better, they have also fallen into all four of these traps. :D

Many questions from you, and all very good questions.

One reason I went the route of an e-book is that my research included the whole picture instead of a snippet in a journal. A journal publication would not provide enough space or provide justice for the findings. Journals only allow 8 or so graphs, maybe 10 at the most. They also limit you to about 8000 words...not enough.

The reveiwers were well aware of a possible backlash, but after they read and reviewed my work, they felt my research would stand on its own feet. Thus they felt for the good of science, it was worth it.

And yes, this is one reason you cannot even get new findings in a journal. Very political, only the mainstream thinking makes it.

As to my work. Before critizing my findings, one really needs to read it. You have already made up your mind that my findings cannot possibly be correct, and you have not even seen the research.

My research has uncovered cycles not previously discussed in research by others. This is what makes my research unique, and ground breaking.

I agree with you that new ideas not published in journals are blacklisted by much of the scientific world. And even the media reacts in some extent to this.....for them, if it did not come from a government agency or university...it cannot be good science.

Well my friends...it is actually the government and university systems that are releasing incorrect science concerning global warming. It is all political and universities cannot even get grants to study natural cycles.

So yes, it is a tough hard road getting the correct ideas out there. Because of the length of my write-up I am confined to a book, and public speaking engagements.

A quick question, Reading through the threads breifly, it seems to be central to your theory that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by natural means. How does this square with the knowledge that the isotopic signature of the C02 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of specific fossil fuels ?.

I am sure not all of the CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotopic signature coming from the burning of a specific fossil fuel or fuels.

The mega 450k, 116k, 925k and their associated mega global warming cycles are now peaking, and the 231 year cycle is beginning to decline. During all of these cases CO2 rises naturally and during the 4 prior 116k cycles CO2 rose from 180ppm to near 300 ppm (mean values over a 2k to 4k period) without the help of man buring fossil fuels.

So, today's atmosphere could not in any way have all the CO2 with the signatures you said. A minor percent yes.

David,

With today's modern technology of satellites it is possible to monitor, measure and track high pressure weather systems; how is it possible to gauge this, both retrospectively and historically for long periods of time?

Have you used proxy measurements in order to measure this, if so, of what?

It was proven by Dr. Reid Bryson way back in 1948 that certain monthly gravitational cycles pull high pressure centers northward from their mean position during the first 13 days of the monthly cycles, and then southward during the second half of the lunar cycle. He used over 500 case studies.

I have expanded on his research by using this as a foundation and enlarging the spatial period of the gravitational research. It was already proven that the lunar cycles migrate the climate northward over short times, so it is extremely logical that similar longer term cycles migrate the climate northward or southward for longer periods of time.

Once the long-term gravitational cycles were correlated with reconstructed temperatures during the past 1000 years and from ice core samples back 425k years, it became very apparent that long-term cycles act much like the short-term cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA

Roger Smith

You said that "as myself if you try to disguise the Milankovitch cycles as part of some 100% accurate lunar model, this will only make the task of serious researchers even harder because we've gone through this "cycle" before, it has four component parts:

a. Vague claims of 100% accuracy

b. Attempts to shovel all complexities into one simple theoretical framework (the magic equation)

c. Refusal to tackle thorny questions of day to day, week to week and month to month variability

d. No recognition of regional variations, the "all regions the same" over-simplification

May I answer some of this.

a. I do not provide vague claims for 100% accuracy, it is shown in the book that there is a 100% correlation.

b. Not totally shoveld into 1 simple complexity, but it does show in the book that the Primary Forcing Mechanism is the driiving force for the El Nino, Global Warming, and on the side I am using my modeling for hurricane track forecasting, regional historical floods among other things.

c. Some thorny questions I have not answered because my book only came out last week. Once it has circulated I can be more specific.

d. Yes there are regional variables, I do not doubt this. But the main driving force is the gravitational cycles.

....I would like to add here that I am available for presentations,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

Thanks for answering but I said that only the increase had the isotopic signature of burnt fossil fuels. If the increase as you say is natural how can this be.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
Thanks for answering but I said that only the increase had the isotopic signature of burnt fossil fuels. If the increase as you say is natural how can this be.....

Iceberg,

Maybe I do not understand your question. When you say increase, what increase are you talking about? CO2 levels above 380ppm? Above 330ppm? Above 280ppm? or above 200ppm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

You didn't address my two main questions, what is the basis for a 231-year lunar cycle, and how do you relate the longer cycles mentioned to the already-established research of Milankovitch?

Sorry to seem confrontational, but without sensible answers to those two questions, I could not possibly take this very seriously, having spent a lot of time studying questions of lunar-orbital dynamics and the other related questions involved here.

As to 100% correlation, that is probably an overstatement of how generally acceptable Milankovitch cycles are found to be in glaciology. But even if it isn't, we have yet to see any real foundation for your claim that these longer cycles have anything to do with the Moon. Or are you saying it's only 100% for the 231-year cycle? Because that is easily disprovable from the CET records. The best cycle I could find in an extensive CET analysis was 65 years (when you smooth the data considerably). It was nowhere near 100%.

I have to assume you are aware that the statement "100% correlation" when applied to a 231-year cycle would imply that one could find a 100% accurate linear extrapolation from the CET data 231 years ago to the modern period of record. For example, the very cold winter of 1740 should have repeated in 1971. This was a very cold winter in the Great Lakes region not in central England. So does your model shift correlations in spatial form as part of its operational procedures?

Anyway, I hope you're young because there are probably at least one hundred factors that need to be assessed to derive a working model of atmospheric variations, and the Moon accounts for perhaps 15% of the total variance. Amusingly, you sound just like me in 1980. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
You didn't address my two main questions, what is the basis for a 231-year lunar cycle, and how do you relate the longer cycles mentioned to the already-established research of Milankovitch?

Sorry to seem confrontational, but without sensible answers to those two questions, I could not possibly take this very seriously, having spent a lot of time studying questions of lunar-orbital dynamics and the other related questions involved here.

As to 100% correlation, that is probably an overstatement of how generally acceptable Milankovitch cycles are found to be in glaciology. But even if it isn't, we have yet to see any real foundation for your claim that these longer cycles have anything to do with the Moon. Or are you saying it's only 100% for the 231-year cycle? Because that is easily disprovable from the CET records. The best cycle I could find in an extensive CET analysis was 65 years (when you smooth the data considerably). It was nowhere near 100%.

I have to assume you are aware that the statement "100% correlation" when applied to a 231-year cycle would imply that one could find a 100% accurate linear extrapolation from the CET data 231 years ago to the modern period of record. For example, the very cold winter of 1740 should have repeated in 1971. This was a very cold winter in the Great Lakes region not in central England. So does your model shift correlations in spatial form as part of its operational procedures?

Anyway, I hope you're young because there are probably at least one hundred factors that need to be assessed to derive a working model of atmospheric variations, and the Moon accounts for perhaps 15% of the total variance. Amusingly, you sound just like me in 1980. :)

Roger,

The e-book shows precisely plotted gravitational cycles to reconstructed temperatures from present day back 1k years. When I refer to a 231 year cycle I am stating an approximate 231 year cycle. The graviational cycles is not exactly 231 and neither is the global warming cycles. But, they line up 100% with the beginning and ending of each of the 5 cycles duirng the1000 year period. It is a real cycle, and it is what drives the warming and cooling cycles by displacing atmospheric high pressure systems.

Shorter cycles of approximately 4 years cause the maturity and demise of the El Nino. Other cycles produce regional historical floods. The portion about floods and hurricanes are not in the e-book, but I do incorporate these findings in presentations.

You mentioned a 65 year cycle although I have found an approximate 72 to 76 year cycle to be more accurate. Do you know about the 925 year cycle? Or the116,000 year cycle? These are very specific cycles I have uncovered and discuss in my e-book.

The book can be found at www.globalweathercycles.com and is called "Global Warming - Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found".

A very good press release about this can be found by googling my name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Roger,

The e-book shows precisely plotted gravitational cycles to reconstructed temperatures from present day back 1k years. When I refer to a 231 year cycle I am stating an approximate 231 year cycle. The graviational cycles is not exactly 231 and neither is the global warming cycles. But, they line up 100% with the beginning and ending of each of the 5 cycles duirng the1000 year period. It is a real cycle, and it is what drives the warming and cooling cycles by displacing atmospheric high pressure systems.

I see.... When you say 100% correlation you mean 100% correlation to an approximate 231 year cycle? How much wiggle room do you allow around 231 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

GWO, I am a little disappointed in this thread really, I thought we would be seeing some serious discussion and debate on what looks like a possibly important study. Folks are asking serious questions which do really require more serious answers, not just more drive to buy your e-book or book a presentation. You do have an opportunity to debate this on NetWeather without the usual nastiness and abuse that you will most porobably find elsewhere on the internet when new theories and study comes along, as NetWeather are very good at providing a forum where they I think have found a great balance in moderation of the threads. Why not take that opportunity? There are some smart people on here, YOU may even learn something new too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
  • Location: Worthing West Sussex
Roger,

The e-book shows precisely plotted gravitational cycles to reconstructed temperatures from present day back 1k years. When I refer to a 231 year cycle I am stating an approximate 231 year cycle. The graviational cycles is not exactly 231 and neither is the global warming cycles. But, they line up 100% with the beginning and ending of each of the 5 cycles duirng the1000 year period. It is a real cycle, and it is what drives the warming and cooling cycles by displacing atmospheric high pressure systems.

Shorter cycles of approximately 4 years cause the maturity and demise of the El Nino. Other cycles produce regional historical floods. The portion about floods and hurricanes are not in the e-book, but I do incorporate these findings in presentations.

You mentioned a 65 year cycle although I have found an approximate 72 to 76 year cycle to be more accurate. Do you know about the 925 year cycle? Or the116,000 year cycle? These are very specific cycles I have uncovered and discuss in my e-book.

The book can be found at www.globalweathercycles.com and is called "Global Warming - Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found".

A very good press release about this can be found by googling my name.

David,

By your responses, I understand that you are reticent to divulge details of your own research in your E book.

However, can I ask whose temperature reconstructions you use to correlate your gravitational cycles?

As we know well on this forum, there are many reconstructed temperature series available, and considerable dispute as to which series most accurately represent the global picture before thermometric measurements were available, and even over this measured period, to the current day, which global temperature record is actually correct.

Since you have no published record, I assume that you use at least one reconstruction that has been published, and you should be able to give us a reference.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

David

Limited as I am as to research time and application I am a believer in Lunar influences over our climate and indeed the ability to apply such lunar cycles to upcoming weather events. I have had some decent succes with this method...but an amateur I am.

Cut to the point I believe strongly in a global cooling period iminently upon us and have stated on here that i think by 2015 it will be plainly obvious that we are in global cooling of a very problematic type.

When do you think phase 2 will start?

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
I see.... When you say 100% correlation you mean 100% correlation to an approximate 231 year cycle? How much wiggle room do you allow around 231 years?

Devon,

It is the cycle that allows what you call "wiggle room", not me. The cycles are at times very close to 231 years and at times at 25 to 30 years or so difference. This would hold true for longer cycles as well. The harmonics are the same as the actual reconstructed temperatures over the past 1k and 425k years.

You can find the book at www.globalweathercycles.com

good reading, will provide all the facts. Has about 30 graphs and tables, written for the layman and for the science rerearcher. s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

I have yet to come across a single scientific theory that has been published in a book before being peer reviewed that is correct why should yours be any different. Particularly as you refuse to discuss any of the detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devon,

It is the cycle that allows what you call "wiggle room", not me. The cycles are at times very close to 231 years and at times at 25 to 30 years or so difference. This would hold true for longer cycles as well. The harmonics are the same as the actual reconstructed temperatures over the past 1k and 425k years.

You can find the book at www.globalweathercycles.com

good reading, will provide all the facts. Has about 30 graphs and tables, written for the layman and for the science rerearcher. s

You keep plugging your book, I wish you'd answer some questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
You keep plugging your book, I wish you'd answer some questions.

Well reading the threads he has answered many questions. The guy deserves the right to require folk read his work and pay for it rather than answer everything for 'free'.

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

If the book has 30 graphs and tables then is it possible to post maybe just one or two, preferably with citations as to their source, that offer some compelling reason for purchasing the book? At the moment all I am getting is that this is a whole new theory that fully explains global warming and to find out more we have to fork over some money. Even the "abstract" on the website says little more than "all warming can be explained by lunar cycles" without offering even a suggestion as to how these cycles come about and the historical evidence for them.

Over on Accuweather, Mr Dilley says "I am trying to get the truth to the public." If the author wishes to expose the truth then why is he being so guarded about his theory? If this theory truly destroys the AGW theory then one would expect some information to be presented that would catch people's attention.

I am not saying that I won't accept this theory under any circumstances - on the contrary, I would be extremely happy if it turned out to be correct - but right now I have absolutely no reason to accept it, and I have no compulsion to pay to find out more.

So, any chance of giving us some more details?

:)

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
I have yet to come across a single scientific theory that has been published in a book before being peer reviewed that is correct why should yours be any different. Particularly as you refuse to discuss any of the detail.

Iceberg,

Mine is not a theory, it is fact. And, it was "peer reviewed" by 4 professional meteorologists.

And, I will discuss details with those that have read my book. Those that have not are fishing. Seems like no one on this site has read my book, so how can I talk to you about details when you have no idea what I am talking about. If I was invited for a live presentation, it would be different. I could show graphs and tables and interact live with the audience.

Sorry about being so frank

You keep plugging your book, I wish you'd answer some questions.

Believe I did answer your question.

And yes I keep plugging the book for you to read. Otherwise you will not entirely understand the cycles I am talking about.

Well reading the threads he has answered many questions. The guy deserves the right to require folk read his work and pay for it rather than answer everything for 'free'.

BFTP

BFTP

Thank you for your understanding. If they would like to invite me for a presentation I will show everything in the book, provide interaction with the audience and answer all questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
If the book has 30 graphs and tables then is it possible to post maybe just one or two, preferably with citations as to their source, that offer some compelling reason for purchasing the book? At the moment all I am getting is that this is a whole new theory that fully explains global warming and to find out more we have to fork over some money. Even the "abstract" on the website says little more than "all warming can be explained by lunar cycles" without offering even a suggestion as to how these cycles come about and the historical evidence for them.

Over on Accuweather, Mr Dilley says "I am trying to get the truth to the public." If the author wishes to expose the truth then why is he being so guarded about his theory? If this theory truly destroys the AGW theory then one would expect some information to be presented that would catch people's attention.

I am not saying that I won't accept this theory under any circumstances - on the contrary, I would be extremely happy if it turned out to be correct - but right now I have absolutely no reason to accept it, and I have no compulsion to pay to find out more.

So, any chance of giving us some more details?

:)

CB

Captain

You say that I am guarding the truth. I believe your statement is totally incorrect.

If I am guarding my research then why have I published my findings for all to read and review.

If you do not wish to learn about the truth concerning cooling and warming cycles...it is a free socieity and you do not have to buy the book...it is your free choice.

Do you purchase journals? Do you buy a ticket to see a movie?

My research was funded totally out of my own pocket. Researchers publishing through their government or university are paid by that institution to do so. I am not. The only pay I will receive for 19 years of research is if someone purchases my book.

If I posted one of the graphs showing the Primary Forcing Mechanism PFM, it would be all over the web in a matter of hours.

Maybe other readers can help me out here, lets take a poll.

Question? Would 1 graph persuade you to buy the book, or would this just be of interest to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

I think realistically you will probably not get a very high return from your book GWO. I know you say there is 19 years of hard graft in it, but, wouldn't it be better to give the truth freely and get the returns on being able to give more accurate long range forecasting of hurricanes, El nino and the other types of service you say you provide on your website? You have the potential to attract an awful lot of business but are you not stifling it by trying to make as much as possible out of the book?

You are possibly sitting on a potential here, but I think you may be going about it the wrong way, make the e-book into a part of your website, give a good indication why prospective buyers should buy their forecasts from you and promote promote promote like crazy the services side and make that the reward for all the years hard graft.

You have very knowledgeable folks here GWO, Roger has studied I believe a similar field to you, for many years too, along with others who have studied it along a more amateur line, you have John who is an ex-MetOffice Meteorologist and was a Meteorologist for the RAF, you have Kold Weather and a group over in the Tropical Storm section who have been closely watching Hurricanes and Typhoons now for many years, Paul Sherman and the group in the Tornado section who have been on Storm Chasing, the group here on these threads who have been discussing climate change for a long time, all the forecasting team on NetWeather, the new NetWeather TV coming along soon, all could really put a lot of weight behind your system and theory and bring about a real push for the forecasting side of your company. Something has to give, you cannot expect prospective buyers to buy a service on the back of a theory which you will not openly discuss. We are certainly not ignorant or stupid here. A good bunch of folks who have a great passion in the subject of weather and climate, who would possibly advance that which you already have, and a forum run well by a team who will not put up with the type of abusive, school ground type of "debates" and stuff which go on elsewhere on the big old www. You have a theory peer reviewed by 4 people, you could have the backing of a whole forum and more here too, which would add to the reasons why a prospective buyer should buy their forecast from you.

I do worry too that you are relying on the book never to be plastered all over the net at some time, even with the best will in the world, there is a big chance that it will at some point be snatched and be all over the web at some point, probably by someone who hasn't even the faintest idea of what you are talking about, in a country where you cannot do anything about it, no interest in the content at all and doing it just for kicks and notoriety. The only way to keep something safe on the net and not be posted all over it is not to put it there in the first place.

Anyway, after all it is up to you, but I think you are possibly stifling your potential at the moment.

Edited by SnowBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
  • Location: Ocala,Florida USA
I think realistically you will probably not get a very high return from your book GWO. I know you say there is 19 years of hard graft in it, but, wouldn't it be better to give the truth freely and get the returns on being able to give more accurate long range forecasting of hurricanes, El nino and the other types of service you say you provide on your website? You have the potential to attract an awful lot of business but are you not stifling it by trying to make as much as possible out of the book?

You are possibly sitting on a potential here, but I think you may be going about it the wrong way, make the e-book into a part of your website, give a good indication why prospective buyers should buy their forecasts from you and promote promote promote like crazy the services side and make that the reward for all the years hard graft.

You have very knowledgeable folks here GWO, Roger has studied I believe a similar field to you, for many years too, along with others who have studied it along a more amateur line, you have John who is an ex-MetOffice Meteorologist and was a Meteorologist for the RAF, you have Kold Weather and a group over in the Tropical Storm section who have been closely watching Hurricanes and Typhoons now for many years, Paul Sherman and the group in the Tornado section who have been on Storm Chasing, the group here on these threads who have been discussing climate change for a long time, all the forecasting team on NetWeather, the new NetWeather TV coming along soon, all could really put a lot of weight behind your system and theory and bring about a real push for the forecasting side of your company. Something has to give, you cannot expect prospective buyers to buy a service on the back of a theory which you will not openly discuss. We are certainly not ignorant or stupid here. A good bunch of folks who have a great passion in the subject of weather and climate, who would possibly advance that which you already have, and a forum run well by a team who will not put up with the type of abusive, school ground type of "debates" and stuff which go on elsewhere on the big old www. You have a theory peer reviewed by 4 people, you could have the backing of a whole forum and more here too, which would add to the reasons why a prospective buyer should buy their forecast from you.

I do worry too that you are relying on the book never to be plastered all over the net at some time, even with the best will in the world, there is a big chance that it will at some point be snatched and be all over the web at some point, probably by someone who hasn't even the faintest idea of what you are talking about, in a country where you cannot do anything about it, no interest in the content at all and doing it just for kicks and notoriety. The only way to keep something safe on the net and not be posted all over it is not to put it there in the first place.

Anyway, after all it is up to you, but I think you are possibly stifling your potential at the moment.

SnowBear,

You have some very good points. I have been struggling for quite some time for the proper avenue to take with my research. The first avenue approached was publishing a paper on the El Nino, then the research project kept getting bigger and bigger, and the information larger and larger. Eventually the research became too lengthy for a scientific journal.

Yes snippets of the research could be published, but a snippet does not show the entire picture. If someone sees about 5 minutest of different scenes in a 3 hour movie, they may get the jest of the movie, but not the story line.

The e-book provides the whole story line by showing the creation of the gravitational cycles, then how they correlate with the El Nino and with the cycles of global warming and cooling. During presentations I often demonstrate how these cycles can be used for hurricane forecasting, historical regional floods or droughts.

Yes, I am sitting on a great potential here, and yes I do want to get it out to the world. The proper way to do so is the question. The e-book provides most of the information on my findings, but a blog is not the proper place to reveal this information.

I would be willing to talk to you one on one. You many email me through my website at www.globalweathercycles.com (email is in the contact us section).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

GWO.

To try and help you, As I've said I've heard these stories about theories that might explain everything, they also almost always end in "But I can't get it Peer reviewed because it's such a big thoery and spans multi-disiplines". I then tend to point out the platetectonic's theory. The theory itself was pretty much the thoughts of one person who moulded many strands together and produced peer reviewed research over a number of years to back it up.(don't worry he made his millions as well). You must be able to compartmentalise your thoery.

If Money really is important, and to be fair it's important to everyone. If your 100% fact claim is true you can make a fortune on the weather financial markets, using weather deriviative instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
Captain

You say that I am guarding the truth. I believe your statement is totally incorrect.

If I am guarding my research then why have I published my findings for all to read and review.

If you do not wish to learn about the truth concerning cooling and warming cycles...it is a free socieity and you do not have to buy the book...it is your free choice.

Do you purchase journals? Do you buy a ticket to see a movie?

My research was funded totally out of my own pocket. Researchers publishing through their government or university are paid by that institution to do so. I am not. The only pay I will receive for 19 years of research is if someone purchases my book.

If I posted one of the graphs showing the Primary Forcing Mechanism PFM, it would be all over the web in a matter of hours.

Maybe other readers can help me out here, lets take a poll.

Question? Would 1 graph persuade you to buy the book, or would this just be of interest to you?

I do appreciate the financial aspect of your position, but I am not asking for you to publish your entire thesis free of charge: I am asking for you to show us something compelling enough to convince us to pay for it.

Do I purchase journals? If there is an abstract intriguing enough to make me pay, yes.

Do I buy magazines? If I've had a flick through and want to read something in more detail, yes.

Do I buy movie tickets? If I've seen a movie trailer that makes me want to see the movie then, again, yes.

With all due respect, you have not yet given your work a good enough "trailer" to make me want to buy the ticket. All I'm asking for is a hint of detail to convince me that it's worth spending the money on.

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
I do appreciate the financial aspect of your position, but I am not asking for you to publish your entire thesis free of charge: I am asking for you to show us something compelling enough to convince us to pay for it.

Do I purchase journals? If there is an abstract intriguing enough to make me pay, yes.

Do I buy magazines? If I've had a flick through and want to read something in more detail, yes.

Do I buy movie tickets? If I've seen a movie trailer that makes me want to see the movie then, again, yes.

With all due respect, you have not yet given your work a good enough "trailer" to make me want to buy the ticket. All I'm asking for is a hint of detail to convince me that it's worth spending the money on.

CB

Also that is a very fair point too

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...