Global Weather Oscillations

[jethro]

I would be prepared to go along with that if the rules were the same for everybody, but they are not.

The problem is along the lines "I'm entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that I am right, everyone else is wrong and no-one else has a right to their opinion. My opinion is equally as valid as your opinion that I should be less dismissive of other people's views. Therefore you have to let me be as intolerant as I like". That creates a double standard- how far are we expected to tolerate the intolerant?

Not to mention "AGW is a myth because pigs fly. I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion".

End of rant.

Ian, with the greatest of respect, you've now said this many, many times, in numerous different threads. I get the fact that it's one of your bones of contention - we all have them but it does none of us any favours if we keep repeating them ad infinitum.

The rules [b]are[/b] the same for everyone on here, if anyone over-steps the mark they get their knuckles rapped, repeated offences are punished with extended holidays.

This mantra that you keep repeating is (IMO) pushing you close to the edge of the intolerant views you loath. We're all different, differing backgrounds, education, views, beliefs etc, this leads to different styles of communicating, how about allowing for that instead of insisting that folk do it in a style you approve of.

[MR EXTREMES]

so please anyone tell me if el nino is apon us or are we heading into a la nina.

do thease two have a big connection with our climate for instance if we where to head into a el nino pattern would this mean that winter like 08/09 less likely.

and by the way great debate going on in here

[Iceberg]

Iceberg, you are rather aggressive and OTT...its only ENSO that has missed so far...David did have openness to change forecast. How is AGW coming on? Oh sorry failing miserably.

BFTP

I am sorry you feel that BFTP, but this is a commercial company that is selling it's forecasts. Therefore I don't mind being a bit harsh.

As to changing forecasts, if your prediction comes from a 99% certain theory then if you change the forecast you change the theory.

BTW I am not the one claiming I am better than the worlds major weather/climate organisations.

[Thundery wintry showers]

This mantra that you keep repeating is (IMO) pushing you close to the edge of the intolerant views you loath. We're all different, differing backgrounds, education, views, beliefs etc, this leads to different styles of communicating, how about allowing for that instead of insisting that folk do it in a style you approve of.

Again that perception (that I somehow insist people stick to a rigid style) is a misconception. All I ask for is that people post with at least a little respect for other views, and don't continually twist/mis-represent them (aka "straw man fallacy") and/or launch personal attacks and the like. As for the various other fallacious arguments like "A is true because A is true"- the problem with them is that they are often no better than providing no evidence at all. One caveat is that I am just as capable of making a fallacious argument as anyone else!

Re. Iceberg, could you provide us with some info as to why you think GWO's forecasts are wrong? (e.g. were there any past periods that were incompatible with the forecasts as well as current errors?) I can't find any internet sources that debunk them- though I can find plenty of references to them on the 'net. As for the commercial nature- the book is also avaliable for free download as far as I can see.

[johnholmes]

this thread is becoming as bad as any of the other climate threads-I've just had a rant on the other so won't bore you with another.

Why no everyone simply give their views-don't knock someone else-post your view and leave us all to make our own minds up.

If anyone wants to pursue it then maybe using the pm facility might be an idea for an exchange of views?

Edited May 25, 2009 by johnholmes

[johnny1972]

I am sorry you feel that BFTP, but this is a commercial company that is selling it's forecasts. Therefore I don't mind being a bit harsh.

As to changing forecasts, if your prediction comes from a 99% certain theory then if you change the forecast you change the theory.

BTW I am not the one claiming I am better than the worlds major weather/climate organisations.

Iceberg

I respect your views and your position re GWO but remember this - one of the most heavily financed organisations - The Met Office, makes mistakes as well both in its daily, weekly, monthly and seasonable forecasts. The IPCC have revised their predictions in their most recent report for future conditions so despite money, technology, science, research etc etc mistakes can, are and will always be made in forecasting. GWO's theory cant be scrutinised on a weekly basis but more a yearly basis or even longer. I do believe you've only focused on one aspect of his theory here.

[Cycles]

No it doesn't GWO but neither did YOUR July 08 Forecast which indicated the the very strong warming would occur by Dec.08. I don't believe your July 08 forecast mentioned what would happen in summer 2009.

The July 08 forecasts from the major players were more accurate for there predictions upto the end of 08 than yours and your re issued forecast in Jan still called for warming/switch to El Nino to occur imminently (this can clearly be seen in your posts on my review thread of your predictions as well).

You seem and always have shown a need to twist what has happened to fit your predictions and your theory. This is one of the main reasons I have major and severe doubts over your research.

As I said, I have admitted to the premature forecast of the El Nino, and my forecast was changed in February and is in line with the other organizations you site as doing a great job. Several other organizations are still out of line with the ECM and GWO forecasts...are you going to blast them? And yes if you had been priviledge to my full forecast and hurricane outlook for 2009 (issued in May 2008) you would of seen my hurricane forecast as being influened by the ENSO this summer. This was for paying customers however, so it was not made public.

Now let's get back to global cooling and CO2...we are being distracted from discussing the natural cycles.

[Cycles]

As for the % of CO2 that is anthropogenic it is still pretty small. The argument, rightly or wrongly, is that even a small increase can influence climate.

Do we know the percentage of this small amount? I know it is different for the southern hemisphere versus northern.

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_ga...d_anthropogenic

This is the best I can find- it does stem from two contentious sources (Wikipedia and by extension the IPCC report) but all the other sources I could find were heavily spun one way or the other.

CO2 concentrations have increased by 104ppm since pre-industrial times which is about 30% of the current total. There's a strong implication that human activity is responsible for most of that increase, but uncertainty over the exact figure.

It may well be different for the two hemispheres- unfortunately I can't find any info on that!

[Cycles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_ga...d_anthropogenic

This is the best I can find- it does stem from two contentious sources (Wikipedia and by extension the IPCC report) but all the other sources I could find were heavily spun one way or the other.

CO2 concentrations have increased by 104ppm since pre-industrial times which is about 30% of the current total. There's a strong implication that human activity is responsible for most of that increase, but uncertainty over the exact figure.

It may well be different for the two hemispheres- unfortunately I can't find any info on that!

Good try, and I know we will find the percentages somewhere.

I am not alarmed about the 104ppm increase since 1850. As stated in earlier posts we are at the peak of the mega 116 thousand year cycles (each mega cycle has about 2,000 of the 230-year global warming cycles.

The peak of the mega cycles has CO2 mean levels around 280 to 300ppm with peaks in the 230-year cycles near 390ppm, just like today.

We would expect signatures of fossil fuel burning, and at small percentage levels. Would likely see some of this during pre-industrial times due to naturally occurring forest fires and volcanoes.

[Cycles]

Good paper describes natural CO2 and anthropogenic.

Bottom line is that anthropogenic increase is only about 3% of the natural CO2 increase....sure is not much.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spen...-isotope-ratio/

[Thundery wintry showers]

It depends on whether one trusts Roy Spencer any more than one trusts the IPCC. There's a very interesting and stimulating debate at the bottom of that article which certainly gives a lot of food for thought- the general conclusion appears to be that there is something behind Roy's analysis, but that it doesn't come close to fully accounting for the rising CO2 concentrations.

Edit: another very interesting quote comes out here:

Indeed, even if humans are near fully responsible for the recent increase in CO2, that doesn’t say anything about the influence of CO2 on temperature.

[Cycles]

And we do know there has been somewhat similar levels of CO2 during the past half million years, without man's influence.

We also know temperatures peak approximately every 116 thousand years, with reports of ocean levels rising approximately 10 feet in the Yucatan area, all without man's influence.

We have heard a lot of news indicating dire sea level rises toward the end of this century. Is this possible? Actually yes if global warming continued.

However, the natural global warming cycle is now in the process of shifting to global cooling, this will deter the dire sea level rise.

As seen in my book, global warming cycles occur approximately every 230-years, with the warmest cycle about every 900-years. With earth now on the mega peak, it is likely there will be ice restoration during the cooling cycle from now to about 200 years from now, then another less drastic melt down during the next warming cycle. But the dire sea level rises would likely wait for the next very warm cyce...about 900 years from now.

Best Regards

David

[Cycles]

The latest weekly SST departures are: From the National Climate Prediction Center NOAA

Niño 4 0.5ºC

Niño 3.4 0.5ºC

Niño 3 0.4ºC

Niño 1+2 0.3ºC

NOAA indicates Nino 3.4 region is now at plus 0.5 degree C. Latest NOAA forecast now calls for an El Nino by the northern hemisphere summer, Much in contrast to their earlier forecast for the fall or winter.

The GWO original forecast was about 4 months early on the El Nino, but it is forming on the tail end of the PFM cycle as predicted in the revised forecast a couple months ago.

Edited May 26, 2009 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[MR EXTREMES]

gwo does this mean global meltdown or stable temps.

sorry im noob i just wondered if el nino is going to ruin our chances of another cold winter like last because if it does im going to be truely cheesed of because i dont want this crappy warming, a switch to cooling mode.

Edited May 26, 2009 by badboy657

[Cycles]

gwo does this mean global meltdown or stable temps.

No global melt down on this global warming cycle...have to wait many hundreds of years.

[MR EXTREMES]

No global melt down on this global warming cycle...have to wait many hundreds of years.

but if el nino is coming this summer surely that will warm us up even futher.

[Cycles]

but if el nino is coming this summer surely that will warm us up even futher.

El Nino's occur even during periods of global cooling. Yes it will warm us briefly, then likely be gone by the time winter sets in, so another cool winter is likely.

[MR EXTREMES]

El Nino's occur even during periods of global cooling. Yes it will warm us briefly, then likely be gone by the time winter sets in, so another cool winter is likely.

lets hope thanks for the reply and enjoying reading your posts and intresting debate going on here with some intresting views.

[Cycles]

I have noticed a couple thread comments concerning GWO selling short-term and/or long-term cycle forecasts. What this has to do with the thread discussions and global warming-cooling, I do not understand.

I would like to clear up a couple things.

Yes GWO has contracts for certain specialized forecasts, mainly long-range specialized forecasts going out 1 to 4 years in advance.

Research concerning the El Nino and global warming-cooling is not funded by any organizations or grants. This is an environmental educational service to the general public by GWO and principally by myself.

GWO has given the global warming-cooling ebook free of charge for download, this was done in order to inform the public about a possible natural cause for warming-cooling cycles and natural cycles of CO2.

GWO did not make any money from this venture, income from the book is in the red.

GWO has not sold any El Nino forecasts, again this information is provided free of charge to the public for planning purposes and environmental education.

Thank you and Best Regards

David Dilley

[LadyPakal]

Something I found recently and found quite interesting, written by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmen...environment/312

'A roughly linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C per 100 years seems to have occurred from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C per 100 years.'

On following the link at the bottom I found it contains a new pointer to the full pdf, which is here:

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

He has recently updated his theory - the full pdf is there for download via the link at the bottom of the page. Have a read of it and see what you think. Does this fit with in with your cycles David?

[Cycles]

Something I found recently and found quite interesting, written by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmen...environment/312

'A roughly linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C per 100 years seems to have occurred from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C per 100 years.'

On following the link at the bottom I found it contains a new pointer to the full pdf, which is here:

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

He has recently updated his theory - the full pdf is there for download via the link at the bottom of the page. Have a read of it and see what you think. Does this fit with in with your cycles David?

Thank you LadyPakal

And Yes the multi decadel is a component of climate change...likely driven by natural forces

especially in light that CO2 and temperature cycles are naturally occuring.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Here is the only discussion I can find on the 'net where the GWO theory was challenged and questioned directly:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007...cillations.html

People can feel free to reach their own conclusions from this debate.

To sum up, I'm afraid that, while I am sceptical about the prevailing consensus view among most climate scientists, and consider some of the more sceptical positions to be equally as plausible re. likelihood of them actually turning out to be correct, I don't think this is one of them. A close look suggests that it contains a few potential major holes.

[Solar Cycles]

Here is the only discussion I can find on the 'net where the GWO theory was challenged and questioned directly:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007...cillations.html

People can feel free to reach their own conclusions from this debate.

To sum up, I'm afraid that, while I am sceptical about the prevailing consensus view among most climate scientists, and consider some of the more sceptical positions to be equally as plausible re. likelihood of them actually turning out to be correct, I don't think this is one of them. A close look suggests that it contains a few potential major holes.

I agree to a point TWS, but surely GWO research is part of the jigsaw puzzle that makes up our ever evolving climate, that with other natural forcings and CO2. The big question is just how much CO2 contributes to this, for me only a small part. Their are many theories out there, a few of these are well worth looking into with greater depth. Stepen Wildings hot water bottle theory being one of these. The science is far from settled, and maybe a few on here need to take their rose colured AGW glasses off, and be more open to new ideas!!

[Cycles]

Here is the only discussion I can find on the 'net where the GWO theory was challenged and questioned directly:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007...cillations.html

You really dug up an old blog, 1 year before my book came out. A lot of new research since then.

I think people should look at the newer research, and then judge.