Global Weather Oscillations

[Mondy]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

Perhaps it's that when people hear ideas that they think, how can I put it, a bit off field, they try to distance themselves as politely as they can but that is interpreted as them being silenced when it's really them distancing themselves. No? OK, have it you way, it's a conspiracy then

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is being compared in the reputed Wall Street Journal to religious movements and Jack Welch, a former chief CEO of GE, waved the article around in a discussion on MSNBC to emphasize his extreme dislike of said religion and its practitioners of faith.

Link and link

[johnholmes]

Delta

I assume those two links are made tongue in cheek and not as a serious comment about how true or otherwise GW or AGW is?

[Nick L]

That first link doesn't seem to open for me..

[grab my graupel]

That first link doesn't seem to open for me..

Does it now Nick?

http://itsonlysteam.com/vent/2008/07/09/ag...ching-theology/

[Nick L]

Does it now Nick?

http://itsonlysteam.com/vent/2008/07/09/ag...ching-theology/

Yes it is now thanks. Took until Christmas to open but it eventually worked. Thanks

[bluecon]

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

The last ten years have seen a monsterous increase in manmade CO2 and a slight cooling.

What about that? How does that fit with the AGW theory? Not very well I would think.

[Rob]

The last ten years have seen a monsterous increase in manmade CO2 and a slight cooling.

What about that? How does that fit with the AGW theory? Not very well I would think.

Well said

[Cycles]

GWO

I hope you are right re the cooling and it being part of a natural cycle. I have personally never subscribed to GW and the media's constant rhyming on about it. I don't contribute on the forum to this topic as i have no experience to backup my posts like yourself and many others on it however i follow with great interest the posts. Unfortunately it is near impossible to backup a personal opinion so i stay quiet. That aside if i can workout paypal i will certainly purchase your book in the next week or two and read your findings with great interest. £5 ($9.95) is hardly a massive amount of money to part with.

Anyway fair play to you for holding your own and arguing your corner with your research and i hope you get the success and credit your work deserves ! Please continue contributing on here no matter how tight the going may get at times ! GOOD LUCK

Johny

Thank you for your comments, very much appreciated. You do not need to be a member of PayPal to run your card...maybe I should have that posted on my site.

[Smithers]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

Perhaps it's that when people hear ideas that they think, how can I put it, a bit off field, they try to distance themselves as politely as they can but that is interpreted as them being silenced when it's really them distancing themselves. No? OK, have it you way, it's a conspiracy then

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

Well, already 10 years of no warming has not changed a lot of minds...

Aside from the research in my book how does science explain the cooling during the 1940s into the 1970s? Couldn't of come from the AGW side, CO2 was still going up during the period.

1. Aerosols (I think this is complete garbage).

2. The negative phase of the PDO cycle. This matches up quite well, so I believe the correlation. But perhaps you suggest the PDO (and other ocean cycles of course) can be directly attributed to your PFM?

[Iceberg]

Essan,

I am saying it explains most all global warming cycles and cooling cycles. It is likely the gravitational cycles become in coincidence with the milankovitch cycles, but the other cycles you mention are not a controling influence on cooling and warming cycles. It is the gravitational cycles that actually control the oceanic cycles (as seen in the book).

Roo

We have a political situation in the United States with AGW versus NGW (natural global warming). I am not affliated with a university, but I was told by some university people that Government Grants are not available for research on Natural cycles, only man's connection. Also, if you are in a university you are ostrized if you talk about natural cycles. There have been many instances where grants have been taken away from a university.

I had a man with his Phd in oceanogray and meteorology. He was going to help me publish a paper on the El Nino, but when he found out I was also working on Natural global warming, he had to pull out of the project with me. He was in fear of losing his positiion at the univesity and losing grants.

Rumor is that Dr. Gray the renowned hurricane forecaster lost grants because of his stance on global warming....the list goes on and on.

I was even told by a leading company that if I continue my route on natural global warming, I would be ostricized and not be able to get contracts.

Well, no one can fire me and I do not receive Government Grants, so I am going ahead on my own.

I really don't have time to go through all the posts here, but the constant stance you've taken of the loan voice of truth against the evil machine is rather irritating.

If know you use to work for the NWS and I am assuming you've understood the papers that have been recently released, try trawling through the WHOI, the work on ocean currents and cycles etc all of which concentrate on natural cycles.

I've heard a rumour that your a fraud who's book is being plugged in every single weather and climate forum you can Google, you never show any direct evidence but have perfected the art of making these cycles look great.

I'd be really interested if someone could/would buy the book then we can discuss it on here. (It's quite legal to quote and use graphs etc from a book and post them even if it's copyrighted. I believe in this country you can post 10-20% of a book without copyright breech as long as the source is quoted.)

If I thought there was a decent chance of actually receiving the book I would pay and do it.

[Devonian]

The last ten years have seen a monsterous increase in manmade CO2 and a slight cooling.

What about that? How does that fit with the AGW theory? Not very well I would think.

You seem to think the climate responds in a instant way to one forcing that is increasing? Why do you think that?

[beng]

I've heard a rumour that your a fraud who's book is being plugged in every single weather and climate forum you can Google, you never show any direct evidence but have perfected the art of making these cycles look great.

If I thought there was a decent chance of actually receiving the book I would pay and do it.

Do you want to backup this accusation with some hard evidence or is this just a smear tactic? It really annoys me when I see this kind of post in what's supposed to be a scientific forum.

I have downloaded the book (but have not had a chance to read it in detail yet) - but I can assure you that it does actually exist and from that perspective it's no more a con than Al Gore's inconvient truth.

[Devonian]

Well, already 10 years of no warming has not changed a lot of minds...

Indeed, and the ten years before? Ten year trend can be cherry picked, but I'm fairly sure it's likely the next ten year periods that start to exclude the warmth of the El Nino of 1998 as a start will show warming. So, expect 11 year trend to start appearing...

But, as I said, I think if we see no more warming over the next ten I'll be wondering why. Be fair though, you know that climate is defined over decades (30 in this country).

Do you want to backup this accusation with some hard evidence or is this just a smear tactic? It really annoys me when I see this kind of post in what's supposed to be a scientific forum.

Hells bells yes - you NEVER see people here saying AGW is a fraud do you , but I'm sure you were/would be the first to criticise them when they do... Perhaps Iceberg is picking up on the culture of these debates -no? I will also say that I don't agree with him (which is actually very unusual).

I have downloaded the book (but have not had a chance to read it in detail yet) - but I can assure you that it does actually exist and from that perspective it's no more a con than Al Gore's inconvient truth.

Good for you let us know what you think will you please?

Edited July 16, 2008 by Devonian

[beng]

You seem to think the climate responds in a instant way to one forcing that is increasing? Why do you think that?

Well why haven't things warmed in the last 10 years? Warm PDO, warm AMO, very fast rising CO2 levels, low volcanic activity. The simple fact is that AGW theory cannot answer this question.

[Devonian]

Well why haven't things warmed in the last 10 years?

Mainly because the ten year period quoted starts with a El Nino and ends with a La Nina.

Warm PDO, warm AMO, very fast rising CO2 levels, low volcanic activity. The simple fact is that AGW theory cannot answer this question.

These are effects not causes.

[beng]

Hells bells yes - you NEVER see people here saying AGW is a fraud do you , but I'm sure you were/would be the first to criticise them when they do...

It's one thing saying a theory is a fraud (which actually I don't agree with either - in the case of AGW it's my believe that the theory is wrong in terms of the significance of the effect), however it's another making the accusation against a specific individual.

So I take it from your response that you think it's okay for iceberg to have essentially smeared David as a fraud on a public site without even reading his book - or giving any evidence to back it up.

Mainly because the ten year period quoted starts with a El Nino and ends with a La Nina.

These are effects not causes.

Rubbish. Even when the enso factor is removed as per the recent 'real climate' graph the climate has been essentially flat for the last 10 years.

These are effects not causes.

LOL - you're applying that to CO2 then as well.

[Snowball Earth!]

Talking of frauds I wonder when we will see Mr Hansen and his cronies hauled up before a court of law...... The charge..... Crimes against science!

[Devonian]

It's one thing saying a theory is a fraud (which actually I don't agree with either - in the case of AGW it's my believe that the theory is wrong in terms of the significance of the effect), however it's another making the accusation against a specific individual.

No, I said ' I don't agree with him' can I be clearer.??? It does though make a change from the kind of accusations made of Al Gore and Dr Hansen - you must have missed the hundreds made of them.

So I take it from your response that you think it's okay for iceberg to have essentially smeared David as a fraud on a public site without even reading his book - or giving any evidence to back it up.

Again, I didn't say that, read my post.

Rubbish. Even when the enso factor is removed as per the recent 'real climate' graph the climate has been essentially flat for the last 10 years.

Yes, at least something in that, but the first graph hardly shows cooling does it. Indeed if this were the early 1990's it's clear sceptics would be demanding certain peoples heads given the 'fall' in temperatures then.

LOL - you're applying that to CO2 then as well.

CO2 is a ghg - increase it and the forcing due to it increases as well.

Now, back OT, will you share you view of the book with us at some point?

Talking of frauds I wonder when we will see Mr Hansen and his cronies hauled up before a court of law...... The charge..... Crimes against science!

And my point is made. It's become routine here for people to accuse 'Hansen' or 'Gore' of fraud - one post likewise wondering that of a sceptic and people all say how terrible it is. Hypocritical? Of course not...

Edited July 16, 2008 by Devonian

[Louby]

Can I please remind people of the Code of conduct, if you are not sure there is a link at the top of the page.

Showing other users respect is essential, any disparaging personal remarks will not be tolerated.

Thank you

[Snowball Earth!]

But Dev the delightful Mr Hansen feels that oil companies should be charged with crimes against humanity.......... Now if that's not mud slinging I don't know what is?

[Devonian]

But Dev the delightful Mr Hansen feels that oil companies should be charged with crimes against humanity.......... Now if that's not mud slinging I don't know what is?

I think you should listen to what Dr Hansen said. I listened to his 45 min interview on US NPR, his comment was on the basis of several if and buts and an answer to a question. Not 'should be' more perhaps if they carry on when it's known what they do is damaging then maybe etc etc

Not that anyone is interested in what he actually said...

Edited July 16, 2008 by Devonian

[Snowball Earth!]

But Dev surely you can see that all the major players in AGW are politically motivated and there lies the problem....... Peoples ideologies = Blind science!

[Devonian]

But Dev surely you can see that all the major players in AGW are politically motivated and there lies the problem....... Peoples ideologies = Blind science!

Way hey, nice move of the goal posts! Presumably you accept the point about Dr Hansen being misquoted then?

As to your next allegation, no I do not accept that all the major player in AGW are politically motivated - well no more than any other human beings. The scientists I've listened to are interested in, surprisingly?, the science. Messrs Gore and Hansen (who I guess you refer to...) likewise.

[Iceberg]

Currently at work at the moment, if GWO can spread rumours about smearing AGW scientists and institutions then I am not sure what the difference is between that and my rumour..........

He refers to it as a book but it's only 39 pages or so in length(more a short story.) of that only 15-20 pages are actually to do with his new theory of that alot of this are graphs which are not backed up.

A theory goes through the routine of devise theory, predict the result of the thoery/experiment, test thoery/experiment publish results against theory, none of this has happened. This is the real reason it hasn't been published it has nothing to do with the length of the paper, which if you removed the dross could easily fit into a paper.

Roo mentioned about doing a Phd on it, in short there is not enough here to do a Phd on.

Anyway. I am considering linking to a you tube site that has his book displayed, but am holding off for now.

[Snowball Earth!]

I admit I have only seen quotes from his statement but will hopefully get the chance to listen to it for myself Dev......... And as for blind science! Yes I do believe Messr Hansen and you can call me Al are shall we say deceiving the masses with half truths, lies, and blind science!