Global Weather Oscillations

[jethro]

Yes, there is a "could be". We do not know exactly what those feedback mechanisms were that offset the warming in previous cases when temperatures and carbon dioxide rose, they might not have been tied in with water vapour. One can argue that they were probably tied in with water vapour, but that's the most that the evidence supports.

Again- how do we know this to be true? The vast uncertainties associated with water vapour feedbacks and the existence of natural cooling mechanisms to offset previous warming periods casts doubt on how much, if at all, we are impacting on the global climate system. But they certainly do not eliminate the possibility of us not having the controlling hand in climate.

I do think that's an excellent point. It's a big question that we, and climate models, don't really have the answer to at the moment.

The huge uncertainties over various aspects of the IPCC's predictions certainly casts doubt on how far they can be trusted. However, it doesn't refute them either- I sense a large element of "uncertainty implies certainty" in some of the above arguments, and it doesn't add up- if something isn't certain to be true it doesn't make it untrue.

The "could be" was a direct response to your earlier post stating that the positive feedback of WATER VAPOUR specifically, could be over stated - all feedbacks fed into the models with reference to water vapour, are positive. Therefore, the possibility of the effect being over-estimated are considerable, especially given the uncertainty of our knowledge of clouds and the recent data suggesting there is a net negative impact.

Our controlling hand of climate - leaving aside pollution, aerosols etc and focussing upon CO2 as this is what we were discussing. If CO2 was the controlling factor of climate, the lead cause of change, then we would have boiled away long ago. CO2 has been higher, we're still here. There is absolutely no evidence or science to substantiate the idea that CO2 leads change in climate. The entire theory hangs upon the amplification of the small degree of warming caused by CO2 from water vapour.

There is no element of "uncertainty implies certainty", indeed I actually said this does not mean the entire theory is flawed beyond redemption. Lets not go down the route of circular reasoning eh, the focus upon semantics has ruined many a discussion upon these threads.

Let the science speak; there is no evidence that CO2 controls climate - there is evidence that it can cause a small degree of warming, with a diminishing rate of return. To date, there is no evidence that this causes a positive feedback via water vapour. That is entirely an assumption.

I'd welcome a debate between a top atmosphere physicists or climatologist or meteorologist and Mr Dilley.

So go find one. I invited Mr. Dilley to participate here, you're at liberty to invite who ever you please.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The point is, one can be prepared to concede that in tandem with known natural positive forcings it is certainly possible that man made forcings can have a very small superimposition on it. However, without any convincing evidence at all that this then becomes cumulative and overcomes ever positively tipped natural tipping points, then the conclusion must remain that any small surplus is disposed of, sooner or later, by the natural negative (regulatory)mechanism kicking in, as it always has (and as GWO analysis shows) and in such a way anyway that no cumulative forcing is sustained as to be able to make the step change that AGW hypothesis argues.

I really don't think that follows- it's another example of "uncertainty apparently implying certainty". Indeed, not all of us find the evidence that the man made forcings become cumulative and overcome natural tipping points very convincing. I'm pretty sceptical about it myself. However, if there isn't enough convincing evidence for a position, it doesn't mean that it is false- it just means that it is by no means certain to be true.

The "could be" was a direct response to your earlier post stating that the positive feedback of WATER VAPOUR specifically, could be over stated - all feedbacks fed into the models with reference to water vapour, are positive. Therefore, the possibility of the effect being over-estimated are considerable, especially given the uncertainty of our knowledge of clouds and the recent data suggesting there is a net negative impact.

I agree with that. Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation- when I say something "could be" true, I mean that it might be true but that it isn't definitely true (so when I saw a reply saying "there is no could be" I interpreted it as saying that it was definitely true- which is where the "uncertainty implies certainty" allegation came from in that case. If it's not what you meant, then I apologise for that).

Our controlling hand of climate - leaving aside pollution, aerosols etc and focussing upon CO2 as this is what we were discussing. If CO2 was the controlling factor of climate, the lead cause of change, then we would have boiled away long ago. CO2 has been higher, we're still here. There is absolutely no evidence or science to substantiate the idea that CO2 leads change in climate. The entire theory hangs upon the amplification of the small degree of warming caused by CO2 from water vapour.

There is no element of "uncertainty implies certainty", indeed I actually said this does not mean the entire theory is flawed beyond redemption. Lets not go down the route of circular reasoning eh, the focus upon semantics has ruined many a discussion upon these threads.

Let the science speak; there is no evidence that CO2 controls climate - there is evidence that it can cause a small degree of warming, with a diminishing rate of return. To date, there is no evidence that this causes a positive feedback via water vapour. That is entirely an assumption.

There is some evidence that CO2 causes a positive feedback via water vapour- but whether it's convincing or not is another matter! However, I do think there is way too much focus on CO2 among the climate change community. The reliance on positive feedbacks via water vapour is certainly a potential major flaw, and also, there are plenty of other anthropogenic forcings that could be affecting the climate- methane, contrails, the effects of aerosols on clouds for example.

[johnholmes]

I'd welcome a debate between a top atmosphere physicists or climatologist or meteorologist and Mr Dilley.

I think many on here would love to have that kind of thing happen. Sadly I suspect that neither David IF we got a Hadley centre scientist to give their views, would be happy to discuss/debate with them.

More to the point I very much doubt that any Hadley Centre scientists would do this, not on NW nor anywhere else .

But we could try.

Perhaps Ian (TWS) currently based at Exeter might try.

I'll certainly try although having been given one contact and had a couple of e mails exchanged with him; he made it clear what he thought of David's theory; this is the substance of his reply some months ago

'the web is increasingly full of this stuff. I would give no credence to

the geomagnetic hypothesis ... it is simply without physical basis.

As to the global temperatures "stalling" this is a storm in a tea cup.

Ten years is too short to infer a long-term trend. Twenty, maybe, but

thirty realistically. Shorter and the forced signal becomes obscured by

natural climate variations.

It is possible that the global mean temperature will not rise in the

short-term but this would simply be a case of natural variations masking

the underlying increase that is resulting from humans perturbing the system.'

I can try and approach him again to see if he might take part?

John

[Cycles]

The "could be" was a direct response to your earlier post stating that the positive feedback of WATER VAPOUR specifically, could be over stated - all feedbacks fed into the models with reference to water vapour, are positive. Therefore, the possibility of the effect being over-estimated are considerable, especially given the uncertainty of our knowledge of clouds and the recent data suggesting there is a net negative impact.

Our controlling hand of climate - leaving aside pollution, aerosols etc and focussing upon CO2 as this is what we were discussing. If CO2 was the controlling factor of climate, the lead cause of change, then we would have boiled away long ago. CO2 has been higher, we're still here. There is absolutely no evidence or science to substantiate the idea that CO2 leads change in climate. The entire theory hangs upon the amplification of the small degree of warming caused by CO2 from water vapour.

There is no element of "uncertainty implies certainty", indeed I actually said this does not mean the entire theory is flawed beyond redemption. Lets not go down the route of circular reasoning eh, the focus upon semantics has ruined many a discussion upon these threads.

Let the science speak; there is no evidence that CO2 controls climate - there is evidence that it can cause a small degree of warming, with a diminishing rate of return. To date, there is no evidence that this causes a positive feedback via water vapour. That is entirely an assumption.

So go find one. I invited Mr. Dilley to participate here, you're at liberty to invite who ever you please.

Jethro

Good point you brought up concerning the real issue. Why is it that approximately every 116 thousand years temperatures rise over the course of a 10 thousand year period, followed by carbon dioxide approximately 600 to 900 years later. Then both peak for about 1 thousand years, then as temperatures begin falling for the next 60 thousand years, CO2 lags behind by about 1000 years.

The crucial point is that if CO2 is the cause for global warming, then why does it lag behind the rises and falls in temperature? As you indicated Jethro, if CO2 causes warming, we would have had runaway warming following the peak of each 116 thousand year mega cycle....and we did not.

The 230 year warming cooling cycles and the mega 116 thousand year cycles are a very integral part of the earth's natural rhythm. Like the human body needing rest at night and food for proper energy, earth needs a rest period and then an active period for production of oxygen. During the cool portions of the 116 thousand year cycles, earth is colder with more snow and ice at high latitudes....a rest period. During the warm cycle which we are now in, earth is more active, more plant growth due to the increase in CO2 through the natural feedback system. During this time increased photsynthesis increases our much needed oxygen.

If we reduce carbon dioxide during the warm periods, we would also reduce photosynthesis and oxygen...not good.

Best Regards

David

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I have to say that I find that dismissal in blue above very very disappointing indeed.

On the basis of so many assumptions that are being made about positive feedbacks etc, there is a lot of arrogance in that statement I am afraid to say.

It completely closes down debate and makes the whole science and outlook appear cut and dried. Which it isn't by a long chalk.

I'm sorry - I think it is appalling tbh....

Edited May 21, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Cycles]

I have to say that I find that dismissal in blue above very very disappointing indeed.

On the basis of so many assumptions that are being made about positive feedbacks etc, there is a lot of arrogance in that statement I am afraid to say.

It completely closes down debate and makes the whole science and outlook appear cut and dried. Which it isn't by a long chalk.

I'm sorry - I think it is appalling tbh....

Is it not true that the IPCC has not addressed the long-term cycles I refer to, and water vapour which is actually a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Is it not true that the IPCC has not addressed the long-term cycles I refer to, and water vapour which is actually a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2?

Well absolutely - yes. Bearing in mind the METO fully endorse the IPCC then if that statement is anything to go by then they haven't addressed it because they think it is a non starter. I am staggered to say the least.

Quite worrying actually.

I would like to know how and why they think it is 'without physical basis'

Edited May 21, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

I have to say that I find that dismissal in blue above very very disappointing indeed.

On the basis of so many assumptions that are being made about positive feedbacks etc, there is a lot of arrogance in that statement I am afraid to say.

It completely closes down debate and makes the whole science and outlook appear cut and dried. Which it isn't by a long chalk.

I'm sorry - I think it is appalling tbh....

When someone from the Hadley Centre says of an something "it is simply without physical basis." I am not in a position (because whoever it is they are better qualified than me) not to accept that as the truth. It's not to close down debate it's to say that something is simply without physical basis - it is to state a scientific reality.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

When someone from the Hadley Centre says of an something "it is simply without physical basis." I am not in a position (because whoever it is they are better qualified than me) not to accept that as the truth. It's not to close down debate it's to say that something is simply without physical basis - it is to state a scientific reality.

So according to the Hadley Centre these mega cycles have never existed then?

[Cycles]

So according to the Hadley Centre these mega cycles have never existed then?

I do not know about the Hadley Centre thinking, but it is irresponsible to dis-regard the mega cycles.

During the 8 thousand years leading up to the peak of the cycles, CO2 usually rises from about 180 ppm to 280-290ppm. But during our current mega cycle CO2 started out at 260ppm 10 thousand years ago, thus it was already etched in stone that this cycle would see CO2 levels much higher than prior cycles. This is why the CO2 rose 44 to 52 percent, and during the current mega cycle it has risen 48% (260 ppm up to 386ppm).

Best Regards

David

[Devonian]

So according to the Hadley Centre these mega cycles have never existed then?

I'm saying I'm in no position to disagree with the quote. If they say "the geomagnetic hypothesis ... it is simply without physical basis." I know I am less well qualified than they and I've thus no reason (because I didn't pass the exams, haven't done the research, don't have the job they do) to think I know better than they do.

[jethro]

I'm saying I'm in no position to disagree with the quote. If they say "the geomagnetic hypothesis ... it is simply without physical basis." I know I am less well qualified than they and I've thus no reason (because I didn't pass the exams, haven't done the research, don't have the job they do) to think I know better than they do.

Not that old chestnut please.

If you don't feel qualified to question that's fine but please don't try to stifle debate by inferring that none of us are. Begs the question that if you accept their word as final, will brook no argument, consider their knowledge is all we need to know, will ever need to know and that none of us are able to question it, then without wishing to offend, why are you here?

[Devonian]

I do not know about the Hadley Centre thinking, but it is irresponsible to dis-regard the mega cycles.

During the 8 thousand years leading up to the peak of the cycles, CO2 usually rises from about 180 ppm to 280-290ppm. But during our current mega cycle CO2 started out at 260ppm 10 thousand years ago, thus it was already etched in stone that this cycle would see CO2 levels much higher than prior cycles. This is why the CO2 rose 44 to 52 percent, and during the current mega cycle it has risen 48% (260 ppm up to 386ppm).

Best Regards

David

CO2 conc has risen and fallen with the cycles of glaciation the last few million years have seen - about 100ppm peak to trough - cycles most likely driven by changes to solar forcing and derived albedo/ocean/ocean current/CO2/WV feedbacks. Those changes to concentration happened over thousands of years.

Now CO2 has risen more than 100 ppm in a hundred years, this is an order of magnitude faster than glacial cycles and it's happened because we have released a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere as a consequence of our activities.

Not that old chestnut please.

If you don't feel qualified to question that's fine but please don't try to stifle debate by inferring that none of us are. Begs the question that if you accept their word as final, will brook no argument, consider their knowledge is all we need to know, will ever need to know and that none of us are able to question it, then without wishing to offend, why are you here?

So you do know better than a Hadley scientist?

I'm sorry but I do think some people know more than others. I've always though the teachers and lecturers of my school days knew better than me (arrogant, misbehaving kids at the back of the class probably didn't though...). That didn't mean we couldn't talk, just that I knew I was the student. I've listened to a Hadley scientist. He DID know more than me.

Now I appreciate that deferring to others seems to some to stifle debate. But I simply don't see the alternative to that for the reasons I've given. I'm sorry about that.

I'm here to say what I think (aren't we all?), what those who know more than me say because what I've learnt is that they are right.

Edits...

Edited May 21, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

CO2 conc has risen and fallen with the cycles of glaciation the last few million years have seen - about 100ppm peak to trough - cycles most likely driven by changes to solar forcing and derived albedo/ocean/ocean current/CO2/WV feedbacks. Those changes to concentration happened over thousands of years.

Now CO2 has risen more than 100 ppm in a hundred years, this is an order of magnitude faster than glacial cycles and it's happened because we have released a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere as a consequence of our activities.

So you do know better than a Hadley scientist?

I'm sorry but I do think some people know more than others. I've always though the teachers and lecturers of my school days knew better than me. Arrogant and misbehaving kids at the back of the class probably didn't though...That doesn't mean we couldn't talk, just that I knew I was the student. I've listened to the a Hadley scientist. He DID know more than me.

Now I appreciate that deferring to others does, kind of, stifle debate. But I simply don't see the alternative to that for the reasons I've given. I'm sorry about that.

I'm not saying I know better, I'm saying there are other scientists, some equally as qualified, who have reached different conclusions than the METO and the IPCC.

I have an open mind, which according to the post that JH made, is more than can be said for the Hadley Centre. Like Tamara, I consider this to be wrong, and rather arrogant. Until such time as they have made exhaustive investigations into David's (or any other theory), they are not in a position to say yes or no with any degree of certainty.

You are quite happy to defer to the IPCC and the METO on the basis that they know better than you, but seem completely unable to adopt the same attitude when faced with valid science from respected scientists, when their conclusions differ from your preferred authority.

Will you allow me the same freedom to refer the majority of your posts to a sceptic scientist on the basis that they are more qualified than you? I doubt it very much.

Even the IPCC and the METO/Hadley Centre do not claim we know all we need to know, that knowledge may come from a surprising source, without listening, we may never know.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

CO2 conc has risen and fallen with the cycles of glaciation the last few million years have seen - about 100ppm peak to trough - cycles most likely driven by changes to solar forcing and derived albedo/ocean/ocean current/CO2/WV feedbacks. Those changes to concentration happened over thousands of years.

Now CO2 has risen more than 100 ppm in a hundred years, this is an order of magnitude faster than glacial cycles and it's happened because we have released a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere as a consequence of our activities.

So you do know better than a Hadley scientist?

I'm sorry but I do think some people know more than others. I've always though the teachers and lecturers of my school days knew better than me (arrogant, misbehaving kids at the back of the class probably didn't though...). That didn't mean we couldn't talk, just that I knew I was the student. I've listened to a Hadley scientist. He DID know more than me.

Now I appreciate that deferring to others seems to some to stifle debate. But I simply don't see the alternative to that for the reasons I've given. I'm sorry about that.

I'm here to say what I think (aren't we all?), what those who know more than me say because what I've learnt is that they are right.

Edits...

If you want to pay lip service to everything that the Hadley centre says then fine go ahead. That doesn't make it mandatory for others.

The essence of their message is debate closing as far as I am concerned - which flies in the face of the message that the IPCC/Hadley also have that there are also admitted uncertainties in terms of feedbacks. Which is it? Uncertain or not? Feedbacks done and dusted or not?

It doesn't square with me. If there are uncertainities, which there certainly are, then no analysis should be ruled out - especially when the one we are expected to believe from the Hadley centre relies on unproven hypothesis.

Edit: Jethro's post essentially says the same

Edited May 21, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Cycles]

CO2 conc has risen and fallen with the cycles of glaciation the last few million years have seen - about 100ppm peak to trough - cycles most likely driven by changes to solar forcing and derived albedo/ocean/ocean current/CO2/WV feedbacks. Those changes to concentration happened over thousands of years.

Now CO2 has risen more than 100 ppm in a hundred years, this is an order of magnitude faster than glacial cycles and it's happened because we have released a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere as a consequence of our activities.

So you do know better than a Hadley scientist?

I'm sorry but I do think some people know more than others. I've always though the teachers and lecturers of my school days knew better than me (arrogant, misbehaving kids at the back of the class probably didn't though...). That didn't mean we couldn't talk, just that I knew I was the student. I've listened to a Hadley scientist. He DID know more than me.

Now I appreciate that deferring to others seems to some to stifle debate. But I simply don't see the alternative to that for the reasons I've given. I'm sorry about that.

I'm here to say what I think (aren't we all?), what those who know more than me say because what I've learnt is that they are right.

Edits...

CO2 rises naturally during the mega cycles from 180ppm to 280ppm. The reported levels are a mean extracted from ice cores, with the mean taken over a period of 1000 to 4000 years, thus these means do not take into account the CO2 spikes during the short-term 230 year cycles (actually the peak of the short-term cycles last only about 80 Years, i.e. 1930's peak and the 1998-2007 peak). CO2 rises during each 80-year warming peak, then falls off during global cooling. This is why levels in the year 1860 were close to 260ppm, the bottom point of a global cooling cycle.

Thus if you took into account likely CO2 peaks during the mega cycles (1 mega cycle is made up of about 500 short-term 230 year warming cycles.... 80 year spikes would very likely be near 380ppm.

[Devonian]

There are some scientific 'showns': CO2 is a ghg, the rise in CO2 cons is due to our activities, a CO2 doubling would cause about a 1C warming effect. To doubt these is, imo, to not understand the science.

BUT there are areas with uncertainties big areas. Feedbacks (and the Hadley scientist knows that as well - so the posts above rubbishing them are simply that), clouds, the response of the oceans. All these mean the predicted warming has a range (the old 1-5C) which encompassed the lowest possible to the highest likely.

I go with that. It is what we should debate because IT IS open to debate. There is debate to be had here, but not about what is known.

So, I don't want to close debate but I don't think debating the known is sensible.

Jethro, you accuse me of deferring. I refute that by accusing you of deferring to David. It doesn't get us very far does it?

NSS, you accuse me of certain things as well. Same reply....

David, you are speculating about peaks of Co2 conc and then trying to make them seem more than, well, speculation. I don't buy it.

[johnholmes]

fascinating as ever and I hope we can keep it all on an even keel. We all have a viewpoint, some know more than others, but all should be allowed to express an opinion.

I am a trained meteorologist with a modicum of knowledge about climatology.

Back when the GW or AGW first started I tried to read all I could on the topic. I did question some of the apparent positions adopted by climatologists and have never been totally in favour of the arguments from what became the Hadley Centre but I do accept that they understand far more about climatology than I do. Equally I would hope that most of them would accept that a forecaster is more aware of the forecasting side than they are.

As to the position adopted by my contact in the Hadley Centre I have never met him but he was suggested to me as one of the lead climatologists in Hadley. As to whether he has ever read any of the output from David I have no knowledge. As a so called expert in meteorology I have also been given theories from non meteorologists, some of which to me seemed shall we say hair brained but I hope I was never thought to have been arrogant or dismissive to anyone I spoke to about their theory.

Like I offered at the beginning I will try and contact my link again, give him the web link for David's site and see if he is willing to respond, be it to me privately or into this forum. If its to me I promise to post anything which is sent so long as I'm not infringing any requested non disclosure.

I do agree that only by having a healthy debate and looking at all the options are we likely to have a better understanding. Some of the ideas put forward by David, I have to say, do seem to be a touch short on proof but then that is perhaps true of any new ideas in science.

Lets have the debate but PLEASE keep it polite, its so much more interesting and enjoyable for us all to read the ideas from everyone if we all keep to a polite approach and no personal digs.

sorry its so long.

Edited May 21, 2009 by johnholmes

[Cycles]

David, you are speculating about peaks of Co2 conc and then trying to make them seem more than, well, speculation. I don't buy it.

This is not speculation, lots of common sense and understanding how CO2 historical data was derived.

If we took today's 386ppm and averaged it in with CO2 levels during the past 100 years...well what would we have? Maybe 300ppm?

This is how the ice core samples are done, averaging and taking a mean. Mean values do not show spikes.

And it is not speculation that temperature rise first followed by a rise in CO2 levels...this has been documented by other researchers.

Best Regards

David

[VillagePlank]

I do agree that only by having a healthy debate and looking at all the options are we likely to have a better understanding.

Like your namesake, John, Sherlock Holmes, When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth which, to my mind, means we must, at some point, debate the potentially ridiculous - whatever that might be.

Edited May 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Jethro, you accuse me of deferring. I refute that by accusing you of deferring to David. It doesn't get us very far does it?

I'm not. I'm listening to him. I would only be deferring to David (or anyone else) if I said I thought they had all the answers, or that they were right, above and beyond anyone else - seemingly your stance with the IPCC and Hadley when you referenced them earlier.

I think there may be merit in David's theory as a contributory factor. Do I think it is THE reason? No, I don't think any one thing is solely responsible for climate.

I do however think there is just cause to explore every possible avenue, the knowledge we have is incomplete and we cannot decide what is valid until we have explored the subject. Can we?

[LadyPakal]

I thought this was an interesting read - maybe worth throwing it in here for discussion.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/th...c12-c13-ratios/

It may be a blog but it does reference relevant sources (with links) so there is no need to dismiss it out of hand simply because it is a blog.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I am very much with Jethro on all this.

As she says, no one factor is at work here but there are many aspects of Davids work that do make a lot of sense to me - his dovetailing of timeframe sequences for temp and CO2 peaks and troughs are very compelling IMO. I am particuarly interested in the magnetic forcings on the jetstream and how the PDO cycles fit in exactly with the wider natural cycle mechansims. There is no doubt that the northward push of the jetstream in the recent couple of decades, and associated warming trend, fits in with the PDO cycle, which in turn fits with the wider cycles that he describes. We know of previous cycles and the reverse impacts they have had.

I fail to see how all this can be dismissed too easily.

I also subscribe to solar cyclical positive and negative feedbacks and strongly believe these are very much a factor at play too. Again these factors are underplayed.

And yes, regarding the alleged causative factor in climate change trends that hogs the limeleight - I still wait to see how AGW is supposed to override ALL of these feedbacks, against a swathe of unfinished and uncertain science - and remain very sceptical indeed about this. The clouds feedback uncertainties remains a very big area of potential contrasting solutions which form just one part of that scepticism.

[Cycles]

I am very much with Jethro on all this.

As she says, no one factor is at work here but there are many aspects of Davids work that do make a lot of sense to me - his dovetailing of timeframe sequences for temp and CO2 peaks and troughs are very compelling IMO. I am particuarly interested in the magnetic forcings on the jetstream and how the PDO cycles fit in exactly with the wider natural cycle mechansims. There is no doubt that the northward push of the jetstream in the recent couple of decades, and associated warming trend, fits in with the PDO cycle, which in turn fits with the wider cycles that he describes. We know of previous cycles and the reverse impacts they have had.

I fail to see how all this can be dismissed too easily.

I also subscribe to solar cyclical positive and negative feedbacks and strongly believe these are very much a factor at play too. Again these factors are underplayed.

And yes, regarding the alleged causative factor in climate change trends that hogs the limeleight - I still wait to see how AGW is supposed to override ALL of these feedbacks, against a swathe of unfinished and uncertain science - and remain very sceptical indeed about this. The clouds feedback uncertainties remains a very big area of potential contrasting solutions which form just one part of that scepticism.

I likewise agree with you "North Sea" and Jethro. There is not just one forcing mechanism, but several working in conjuntion to control the PDO, ENSO etc. The forcing of the strong lunar declination cycles not only correlate very well with these changes, but also with other forcing mechanims such as solar. It is however very likely that the lunar forcing is the Primary Mechanism.

Best Regards

David

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

A very inaccurate statement if ever one was made.

BFTP

OK, put your evidence and data that I'm wrong here and I'll listen to it. I submit this as a good summary of the evidence and data there is .

I will soon when time is availed to me. That report seems rather odd as it suggests that we would see no CO2 increase if we hadn't burned fossil fuels. That seems rather odd to me as warming oceans have released incredible amounts of CO2...and the oceans have been warming...haven't they?

BFTP