Global Weather Oscillations

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes Tamara, of course. The IPCC is a 'narrow thinking windbag'!

I find politically-motivated invective, virtriol and bias 'frustrating' too...

It's rare for me to use politically motivated invective.

(Nice catchphrase! )

[Methuselah]

It's rare for me to use politically motivated invective.

(Nice catchphrase! )

My brain hurts today, mate...Are we all going round in circles again?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

My brain hurts today, mate...Are we all going round in circles again?

Am I Australian?

[MR EXTREMES]

ipcc bla bla bla what aload of rubbish they have produced over the years and now theres no warming what next?.

ok the answer is they will along with the massive following of bias specialists carry on with the gw hype if there is one subject that gets my backup its this one.

our planet will cool and warm for many more years,

but for now colder climate could well be a possiblity our sun drives our climate fact,

so dont expect scoarching hot summers regularly for sometime,

and its likely that winters will become colder each year until the sun awakes from its slumber.

ok so it could awake but most likely not,

afterall this one caught out the clever people at nasa who have moved the goal post so many time as has the ipcc so any scientist that sits there and fills my head with over 10years of bullcrap,

then it turns out different then its clear to see they need more time to lern about our planet maybe another 100years or so and even then i don think they could predict the events that crop up out of the blue.

our climate and our solar system is more complex than man thinks so time will tell either way,

but like i said warming and cooling is nothing new and the gwo is something that also has been going on for many millions of years and predictions in this have proven there not accurate either,

goal posts been moved here to.

man is trying to be clever but its being out foxed by something that is fair more powerfull than man.

Edited April 13, 2009 by badboy657

[Methuselah]

ipcc bla bla bla what aload of rubbish they have produced over the years and now theres no warming what next?.

ok the answer is they will along with the massive following of bias specialists carry on with the gw hype if there is one subject that gets my backup its this one.

our planet will cool and warm for many more years,

but for now colder climate could well be a possiblity our sun drives our climate fact,

so dont expect scoarching hot summers regularly for sometime,

and its likely that winters will become colder each year until the sun awakes from its slumber.

ok so it could awake but most likely not,

afterall this one caught out the clever people at nasa who have moved the goal post so many time as has the ipcc so any scientist that sits there and fills my head with over 10years of bullcrap,

then it turns out different then its clear to see they need more time to lern about our planet maybe another 100years or so and even then i don think they could predict the events that crop up out of the blue.

our climate and our solar system is more complex than man thinks so time will tell either way,

but like i said warming and cooling is nothing new and the gwo is something that also has been going on for many millions of years and predictions in this have proven there not accurate either,

goal posts been moved here to.

man is trying to be clever but its being out foxed by something that is fair more powerfull than man.

Partly true I guess (at least as far as I can decypher it)...I certainly hope the last bit is; because if your assumption turns out to be wrong, then your whole post melts into nothingness??

[Iceberg]

Have you managed to get any of the work peer reviewed or published yet David ?.

I remember you saying about a real paper on ENSO drivers being published shortly.

BTW David, for your ENSO forecast you said that El Nino would take root in the Autumn, December at the latest, then said Jan, then Feb, now June..... (I am sure you know that if you allow a 12 month window either way you can call almost any ENSO event, even my 6 year old could do this with that size fudge factor, particularly after 18 months of La Nina).

Trends might bore some people LG, but if you try and study Climate without them, then you will fail hopelessly.

We are back to IPCC bashing are we, I'll that kind of post alone, but a few people should remember that the IPCC is not a Quango or a bunch of suits it's been made up over the last 15 years by the best climate scientists in the world.

All the Best Iceberg.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Have you managed to get any of the work peer reviewed or published yet David ?.

I remember you saying about a real paper on ENSO drivers being published shortly.

BTW David, for your ENSO forecast you said that El Nino would take root in the Autumn, December at the latest, then said Jan, then Feb, now June..... (I am sure you know that if you allow a 12 month window either way you can call almost any ENSO event, even my 6 year old could do this with that size fudge factor, particularly after 18 months of La Nina).

Trends might bore some people LG, but if you try and study Climate without them, then you will fail hopelessly.

We are back to IPCC bashing are we, I'll that kind of post alone, but a few people should remember that the IPCC is not a Quango or a bunch of suits it's been made up over the last 15 years by the best climate scientists in the world.

All the Best Iceberg.

In the same way as you would want to criticise the sort of natural phenomena explanations given for climate deviations then as I suggested yesterday one should expect the IPCC to take criticism for their attempts to match manmade activities to the same periodic shifts in climate. Again I would say, why are the IPCC beyond any reproach?

They are 'supposed' to be comprised of the best climate scientists in the world. Frankly, so what? Especially when you bear in mind that their projections are already increasingly going astray.

AGW proponents relish the match between CO2 forcing and temperature so it is worth looking at the last sixty odd years and seeing how the correlation has actually stacked up in reality. It can be seen that the 12 yr flatline against IPCC suggested CO2 forcing for the period from 1997 to 2009 has been more abnormal as a relative anomaly than the -.003/yr cooling between 1945 and 1975 when compared to actual CO2 production.

IPCC have rated 90% confidence in their projections for temp/CO2 production estimates. But the 10% confidence that they attached to 2008 being as cool as it was has come to being instead. Time is ticking by and within the next few years they are going to be forced to backtrack on their projections on their next report and assessment as it is hard to see where the sort of warming acceleration required to bring their projections back in line for up to 2012 to 2015 is going to to come from. First of all we have the now predominantly -PDO phase which pre-disposes more global nina episodes and weak nino. It should only take the next nina to ensure that the IPCC projections for the latest period report to be blown irretrievably out of the water.

Furthermore there is the solar min which won't play ball with their estimates. The longer that the current 'sleep' continues then the more that negative feedback will put cooling 'in the bank' to further derail longer term projections. But with even short term projections on the ropes then what confidence for the long term?

Enough justification for the assumed 'greatness' of the IPCC to be criticised I think?

Edited April 14, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Aah, now I get it:

For AGW theory to stand up, each and every of its predictions must tally 100% with reality and throughout all time. Whereas, alternative hypotheses need only sound nice (the globe's cooled down by 100th of a degree C in the last 8 minutes) and AGW theory should at once be dropped in favour of another option? :unsure:

You can slate the IPCC all you like - CO2 will not lose its greenhouse characteristics; various ENSO predictions will fall by the wayside one after the other, and Solar activity will fall or rise as it will, etc. etc. etc.

Here's a prediction: If the Sun's radiance falls by 20%, than Earth will cool...but that won't have anything at all to say on CO2's greenhouse characteristics? More realistically though, when El-Nino conditions return the Earth will warm, easily overriding this (I suspect, imaginary) 12-years' of cooling...

Oh dear! ENSO is a natural climate oscillation. Climate scientists and IPCC reports taught me that!

[Iceberg]

In the same way as you would want to criticise the sort of natural phenomena explanations given for climate deviations then as I suggested yesterday one should expect the IPCC to take criticism for their attempts to match manmade activities to the same periodic shifts in climate. Again I would say, why are the IPCC beyond any reproach?

They arn't, never said, never will do, neither has anybody else, so this is a total strawman, I've disageed with the IPCC about things, but that's not what this thread has been doing.

They are 'supposed' to be comprised of the best climate scientists in the world. Frankly, so what? Especially when you bear in mind that their projections are already increasingly going astray.

If you want to dismiss people that have been working in this area for decades then so be

AGW proponents relish the match between CO2 forcing and temperature so it is worth looking at the last sixty odd years and seeing how the correlation has actually stacked up in reality. It can be seen that the 12 yr flatline against IPCC suggested CO2 forcing for the period from 1997 to 2009 has been more abnormal as a relative anomaly than the -.003/yr cooling between 1945 and 1975 when compared to actual CO2 production.

Projections again, feel free to post up these projects and where they have gone astray. Also taken from 1999-2009 temps have increased and not flatlined, see the graph I posted elsewhere, anybody can take points in time to prove whatever they like, but the predictions from the IPCC were not for 2008/2009 they were for much further in the future. If you predict the Australians to beat England at Cricket and then after the first over say the prediction is wrong then your look rather silly.

This isn't a strawman this is a deliberate attempt at ridicule by taking thigns out of the context in which they where created.

IPCC have rated 90% confidence in their projections for temp/CO2 production estimates. But the 10% confidence that they attached to 2008 being as cool as it was has come to being instead. Time is ticking by and within the next few years they are going to be forced to backtrack on their projections on their next report and assessment as it is hard to see where the sort of warming acceleration required to bring their projections back in line for up to 2012 to 2015 is going to to come from. First of all we have the now predominantly -PDO phase which pre-disposes more global nina episodes and weak nino. It should only take the next nina to ensure that the IPCC projections for the latest period report to be blown irretrievably out of the water.

Again an attempt to say that a cold year 2008(by cool we still say a top 10 warm year my the way) means that the IPCC are wrong about everything. Bizarre, please show where the IPCC say that every year will be in the top 3..?

Again what cooling did the last negative PDO create ?. why haven't temps followed the PDO when you plot them together for tha last 20 years ?.

Furthermore there is the solar min which won't play ball with their estimates. The longer that the current 'sleep' continues then the more that negative feedback will put cooling 'in the bank' to further derail longer term projections. But with even short term projections on the ropes then what confidence for the long term?

Where do they say what Solar effects they include or don't include in there estimates.? Please point out. What negative effects on temperature has the current solar min had ?, None as far as my research as shown.

Ah the old arguement they are wrong because I can prempt the future and they will be wrong, so I will say they are wrong now and damn them.

Enough justification for the assumed 'greatness' of the IPCC to be criticised I think?

Finally finish on an slight and a strawman together, congratulations.

My comments are in Bold, btw this is the reason why I rarely post on this climate threads now and I certainly won't be dragged into these kinds of arguements. So don't expect a reply.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think both those two responses are unfortunate. Just because 'I dared' to challenge the findings of the IPCC with one or two attempted figures :unsure: .

The flare-up responses suggest to me there is indeed very much an 'how dare I criticise the IPCC' chip on the shoulder and unfortunately rather illustrates my point.

Btw, believe me, that is not something I am gloating about - I actually am rather genuinely taken aback because I would like to have been proved wrong . It was not done to provoke anyone but an attempt by me to try and put a different approach (from my usual one) on the problems and uncertainties that exist.

You know, you just can't win . One can be criticised for empty responses in terms of 'AGW doesn't exist because it doesn't exist' or you can be jumped on for 'daring' to put some critical bones on that like, eg, here with the IPCC. And sorry, but I am entitled to my view and my current thinking about the IPCC.

I am not going to even try and respond to the points about the PDO, the flatlining of temps. The risk of another outburst is too great.

Life is far too short for getting irate about climate change. I'll bow out. Have a good day all

[Cycles]

The truth concerning CO2 and temperatures can be found in the tables within my book. During all 5 mega 116,000 year cycles, temperatures went up first followed several hundred years later by CO2.

It was the temperatures driving the CO2, not CO2 driving the temperatures.

And following each 116k mega cycle, CO2 remained high for a few thousand years as temperatures fell. If CO2 causes warming, then temperatures would never have dropped and we would of been warming for a couple million years.

David

[Red Raven]

The truth concerning CO2 and temperatures can be found in the tables within my book. During all 5 mega 116,000 year cycles, temperatures went up first followed several hundred years later by CO2.

It was the temperatures driving the CO2, not CO2 driving the temperatures.

And following each 116k mega cycle, CO2 remained high for a few thousand years as temperatures fell. If CO2 causes warming, then temperatures would never have dropped and we would of been warming for a couple million years.

David

You may be right but if decisions as to what theory is to be believed are to be taken then both sides of the argument should be taken into account and a simple decision made on the weight of evidence suggests very strongly that your hypothesis is incorrect.

Simply put your hypothesis is supported only by a minority of climate experts.

[Cycles]

You may be right but if decisions as to what theory is to be believed are to be taken then both sides of the argument should be taken into account and a simple decision made on the weight of evidence suggests very strongly that your hypothesis is incorrect.

Simply put your hypothesis is supported only by a minority of climate experts.

You are correct Red Raven.

And it is correct to say they have not conducted any studies even remotely similar to mine.

[Methuselah]

The truth concerning CO2 and temperatures can be found in the tables within my book. During all 5 mega 116,000 year cycles, temperatures went up first followed several hundred years later by CO2.

It was the temperatures driving the CO2, not CO2 driving the temperatures.

And following each 116k mega cycle, CO2 remained high for a few thousand years as temperatures fell. If CO2 causes warming, then temperatures would never have dropped and we would of been warming for a couple million years.

David

So, you are saying that our addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is unprecedented? Temperatures have risen and temperatures have fallen throughout time, and they always will...But that fact says nothing about what we are doing - we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, in which it acts as a greenhouse gas...

Evidently, temperatures did fall (in pre-human times) in spite of elavated CO2 and its associated upward forcing; the correct response to this 'fact' should be - why? Was its forcing overwhelmed by other effects? Was its presence merely a feedback?

Anyway, we are clearly dealing with separate situations; in doing so, we need separate questions - and separate answers!

[Cycles]

So, you are saying that our addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is unprecedented? Temperatures have risen and temperatures have fallen throughout time, and they always will...But that fact says nothing about what we are doing - we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, in which it acts as a greenhouse gas...

Evidently, temperatures did fall (in pre-human times) in spite of elavated CO2 and its associated upward forcing; the correct response to this 'fact' should be - why? Was its forcing overwhelmed by other effects? Was its presence merely a feedback?

Anyway, we are clearly dealing with separate situations; in doing so, we need separate questions - and separate answers!

If, and I am saying If....CO2 does cause warming, then yes the ending of the mega 116k warm cycles were overwhelmed by the change in the gravitation cycle, and the ending of individual warming cycles within the mega cycle were overwhelmed also.

So, it would be very logical to hypothesize that the current warming cycle will likewise be overwhelmed by the change in the current PFM cycle.

But remember I only said if CO2 is a driver, which it is not because temperatures did fall in pre-human times in spite of high levels of CO2...levels likely the same as today.

David

[Methuselah]

If, and I am saying If....CO2 does cause warming, then yes the ending of the mega 116k warm cycles were overwhelmed by the change in the gravitation cycle, and the ending of individual warming cycles within the mega cycle were overwhelmed also.

So, it would be very logical to hypothesize that the current warming cycle will likewise be overwhelmed by the change in the current PFM cycle.

But remember I only said if CO2 is a driver, which it is not because temperatures did fall in pre-human times in spite of high levels of CO2...levels likely the same as today.

David

But, if the Solar constant was suddenly reduced (for whatever reason) then the Earth would cool - with or without elevated levels of CO2; it would do that now, irrespective of whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Ergo, saying what I've put in bold type is a flawed argument, IMO - the conclusion you draw doesn't necessarily follow??

[Cycles]

But, if the Solar constant was suddenly reduced (for whatever reason) then the Earth would cool - with or without elevated levels of CO2; it would do that now, irrespective of whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Ergo, saying what I've put in bold type is a flawed argument, IMO - the conclusion you draw doesn't necessarily follow??

There is likely several mechanisms working together to control the climate. Many of suggested and studied the solar constant, and it does tie into cycles of the climate, and so does the PFM graviational cycles of the moon.

They all work together (CO2 is just a by-product of warming) with the enormous lunar gravitational pull being the primary mechanism that causes changes within the oceans, atmosphere and the inner and outer core of the earth.

Yes solar controls our seasons with the tilt of the earth, but the gravitational cycles cause huge pushes and tugs on the oceans and atmosphere.

A graph of the PFM cycles in my book shows the response of the tropical South Pacirfic sea surface tempertures to these cycles.

Please click the link to my book if you have not done so already.

David

[Cycles]

With earth now entering a 180-year cool down (see website and free book), should we geo-engineer the climate? If done at the same time natural cooling takes place, what will happen? Will we slide into a 3 to 5 year extreme cold? Will the geo-engineering of the climate act like a volcano and cool the earth much faster than the natural cycle, with a year of no summer occurring much like in 1816?

Download the free ebook and check out the natural cycles.

If you do not want to download the book, you can click the "run" button instead of download button, and then view it on your computer.

download on the website http://www.globalweathercycles.com

[Cycles]

El Nino for the summer? Will it greatly afffect the hurricane season. The PFM primary forcing mechanism peaked in December and triggered the ending of the deep La Nina. The PFM is again peaking right at the very tail end of the PFM cycle with tropical South Pacific water temperatures now rising rapidly toward an El Nino. Because of the deep La Nina in the later fall and early winter, it took a little longer than expected for the tropical South Pacific water tempertures to recover. Because of this GWO's prior forecast was early on the development, but is now on track with the PFM peak at the tail end of the cycle.

Check the latest tropical South Pacific sea surfact temperatures at NOAA.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_...e/sstanim.shtml

More information just posted on my website http://www.GlobalWeatherOscillations.com

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

El Nino for the summer? Will it greatly afffect the hurricane season. The PFM primary forcing mechanism peaked in December and triggered the ending of the deep La Nina. The PFM is again peaking right at the very tail end of the PFM cycle with tropical South Pacific water temperatures now rising rapidly toward an El Nino. Because of the deep La Nina in the later fall and early winter, it took a little longer than expected for the tropical South Pacific water tempertures to recover. Because of this GWO's prior forecast was early on the development, but is now on track with the PFM peak at the tail end of the cycle.

Check the latest tropical South Pacific sea surfact temperatures at NOAA.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_...e/sstanim.shtml

More information just posted on my website http://www.GlobalWeatherOscillations.com

In the final analysis, your prediction of El nino may just be later than expected . I don't think we will see deep or protracted nino events now that the cycle has changed but it does look like one of weak strength will arrive in due course.

But how long till the next nina - and a relatively stronger one as per new cycle as well?

Edited May 18, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[VillagePlank]

Of course, in a cooling trend, warm SST's (or their reciprocal) will indeed provide a greater frequency of ENSO events, which means the target area for any prediction of such events becomes bigger, and easier to hit.

[Cycles]

In the final analysis, your prediction of El nino may just be later than expected . I don't think we will see deep or protracted nino events now that the cycle has changed but it does look like one of weak strength will arrive in due course.

But how long till the next nina - and a relatively stronger one as per new cycle as well?

I agree that the upcoming El Nino will be weaker than I first thought, and brief. This would likely lead us into another La Nina possibly as early as the upcoming winter (late winter).

[Iceberg]

I forecast that it would snow in Dorset in October last year.

It didn't in the end, but did snow in February.

So my forecast was right, the timing was just later than expected

[Cycles]

I forecast that it would snow in Dorset in October last year.

It didn't in the end, but did snow in February.

So my forecast was right, the timing was just later than expected

Your science was correct, it did snow during the cold season, just a little later than you thought. But the science was there, it does not snow in June, July, August, September.

The science I base my predictions on is sound science. An usually deep intense La Nina occured , and when this happens it takes a little longer to dig out of it.

Best Regards

David

[chionomaniac]

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the more northern areas of Dorset saw snow on the 28th October last year!