Global Weather Oscillations

[Roger J Smith]

Now I see that there are signs of an El Nino starting up, at least the La Nina is fading out this season.

Could be a weak to moderate El Nino as per my forecast by winter 2009-10 but I expect a stronger one around 2012.

The way things are cooling in North America, we may need a strong El Nino to prevent a lot of red faces around NOAA. My forecast high for southern Manitoba tomorrow (normal = 20 C) is 8 C. This is about the tenth major cold outbreak since December 11th across western Canada. Temps have been running 2-4 C deg below normal in SK, MB and ND but this then seeps into a more normal restricted zonal pattern and shows up again as a detached negative anomaly over KS and OK caused more by frequent cloud and rain than upper atmosphere anomalies.

[Cycles]

Now I see that there are signs of an El Nino starting up, at least the La Nina is fading out this season.

Could be a weak to moderate El Nino as per my forecast by winter 2009-10 but I expect a stronger one around 2012.

The way things are cooling in North America, we may need a strong El Nino to prevent a lot of red faces around NOAA. My forecast high for southern Manitoba tomorrow (normal = 20 C) is 8 C. This is about the tenth major cold outbreak since December 11th across western Canada. Temps have been running 2-4 C deg below normal in SK, MB and ND but this then seeps into a more normal restricted zonal pattern and shows up again as a detached negative anomaly over KS and OK caused more by frequent cloud and rain than upper atmosphere anomalies.

Looks like the El Nino is ready to pop Roger, likely this summer. I agree with you on the 2012 El Nino.

Yes, cooling is still happening and if there is not a major El Nino, this coming winter will be quite cool as well. Figures posted a few days ago, and your figures indicate cooling is well under way. I know several forecasts called for a warm spring in the Southeast U.S., but it did not happen. One of the coolest here in Florida, right after the very cool winter which broke many cold temperature records.

Regards

David

[MR EXTREMES]

to be honest i cant see there being a strong el nino 2012 im not just saying it either to be akward,

but it would seem that something is going on i cant put my finger on it,

but cooler just seems to be very dominant of coarse it is early to be shouting about mega freeze,

but cooling is happening.

patterns seem to be changing to what we have been used to in the last 5 to 10 years.

over the last few years ive been reading alot about another super el nino or super la nina,

former being the most predicted this has not happened.

and i am not a expert and this could still happen,

but my thoughts would be that the ever cooling pacific ocean could hamper the formation of a strong el nino just a theory.

but intresting subject and i very much enjoy reading the post in here.

[Thundery wintry showers]

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!!

A good point does come out of the above. As a general rule, even if a theory is wrong, it doesn't mean that all of the premises behind it are worthless- sometimes it can be a case of most of the premises being correct but one or two flaws causing the conclusions to be in error. So while I distrust the GWO theory I am genuinely interested to see if there are truths behind it that haven't yet been unearthed by the mainstream scientists.

As for this newer GWO research, can someone show me a link where there has been any kind of discussion on it (or of it)?

[Cycles]

An independent report analyses on global warming was posted on the climaterealist site (not posted by me-GWO)

this is a link to the site http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3538

Section 3.0 is interesting ""Is GW due to natural causes" (check items 13 through 17).

The full report is on the link GWanalysis.htm

[Cycles]

El Nino Update

The graph below shows the 5 El Nino occurrences since 1995 in relation to the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) used by GWO.

Note the red line which is the PFM and the dashed red line which was the Forecast of the PFM as issued in July of 2008.

Note the Blue is the sea surface temperatures (SST's) in the central South Pacific, more specifically the Nino 3.4 temperatures.

Note the rise in the SST's following the peak of the PFM. All PFM peaks since 1915 have produced an El Nino.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

El Nino Update

The graph below shows the 5 El Nino occurrences since 1995 in relation to the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) used by GWO.

Note the red line which is the PFM and the dashed red line which was the Forecast of the PFM as issued in July of 2008.

Note the Blue is the sea surface temperatures (SST's) in the central South Pacific, more specifically the Nino 3.4 temperatures.

Note the rise in the SST's following the peak of the PFM. All PFM peaks since 1915 have produced an El Nino.

I think by and large your predictions have been very good :lol:

[Methuselah]

I think by and large your predictions have been very good

Right Tamara, I'm going to go against my-own exhortations here: my gut-feeling tells me that there's definitely something in GWO's approach. I don't profess to fully understanding it but, IMO, the Sun is our climate's main driver. How can it be otherwise? 99.9999999x % of the system's energy comes from that one source...

I'm listening, guys! :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I've looked at the sources GWO quoted on the 6th June and I'm afraid that they don't offer any extra support for this GWO theory other than to state that the author(s) thinks it has credibility and can be used as an authoritative source. Nothing whatsoever to address the potential flaws pointed out in the old debate.

Some examples of problems with Lycklama's assertions:

The Monckton report indicates that even though CO2 concentration is increasing, the average global temperature is not increasing proportionally.

...and although it contained the odd good point here and there, most of it was political propaganda and heavily biased against AGW.

The case made by the IPCC that GW is largely due to anthropogenic causes does not have wide support outside of the IPCC committee. It does not appear that human hydrocarbon use is causing significant increasing global termperatures.

Actually, although the list makes some good points about uncertainty there is nothing in it to support such a strong conclusion. Indeed, one critical aspect of it is plain wrong- AGW does have wide support outside of the IPCC committee. Which of course doesn't make it right, but it does make one of Lycklama's arguments wrong.

Environmentalists have warned of a potential for a global catastrophe in the late 1970’s based on the GC that was occurring in the previous 25-30 years. This did not occur.

...but nowhere near as many environmentalists as are currently arguing for AGW. In fact some texts (such as "Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery", Imbrie & Imbrie, 1979) mentioned that natural factors pointed towards cooling but that AGW could override it in the future.

However, the article does deserve some credit- not because of issues relating to the GWO theory, but because some of his points re. uncertainty, and adopting a more rounded approach to the problem instead of "putting all our eggs in the AGW basket) are arguably very good.

Interesting graph re. the El Nino predictions. I'd be interested to know where it comes from, but the correlation is pretty good. Note that all of the above doesn't cause me to dismiss this GWO idea, just to make me more sceptical about it. I would not dismiss something until I could see conclusive evidence that it was false- and as yet I don't.

[Cycles]

Interesting graph re. the El Nino predictions. I'd be interested to know where it comes from, but the correlation is pretty good. Note that all of the above doesn't cause me to dismiss this GWO idea, just to make me more sceptical about it. I would not dismiss something until I could see conclusive evidence that it was false- and as yet I don't.

The graph is the one which I released in July of last year and have posted several times since....

the difference is that this graph updates the sea surface temperatures...the dotted red line is the PFM posted last year (forecast of the PFM)

Same PFM graph I have been using for almost a year now...just an update of the temperatures during the past 10 months.

Best Regards

David

[Cycles]

I've looked at the sources GWO quoted and I'm afraid that they don't offer any extra support for this GWO theory to address the potential flaws pointed out in the old debate.

And exactly what flaws are you talking about. I remember great support from posters, and very little concerning flaws.

Regards

David

[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

Here's the discussion again then, and I don't think it matches up with what you say at all...

[Cycles]

Here's the discussion again then, and I don't think it matches up with what you say at all...

The discussion you keep pointing to was in the year 2007, 1-year before my global warming-cooling book was published. They never saw my research that went into the book, and/or newer research on the El Nino.

All in all a very old blog on old out of date research.

Best Regards

David

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's the argument you used the last time, but then you said there were sources that addressed those old flaws, I requested evidence, I got sources that merely assumed the correctness (or likelihood of correctness) of the GWO theory and mentioned nothing about criticisms of it. And then you said you recalled a lot of support and very little stuff on flaws in the old debate- did you mean some other debate that I don't know about, or the one I just pointed to? I can't really comment on the former as I cannot find any other internet sources where people have voiced their views on this theory- but the latter would be an inaccurate assertion.

I don't want to come across as sounding too harsh but when I challenge and question something and end up full circle back to where I started, my scepticism tends to grow further. Before anyone says anything- I am not accusing David of circular reasoning here- that's not the only way you can end up with a debate going around in circles.

[johnholmes]

GWO

if you read the comment and question from TWS (Ian) carefully you may see what he is getting at.

Don't, I would use the word, hide, but do not mean it in a derogatory manner, behind your theory, just answer the question as honestly as you can.

Those of us who are sceptical but willing to read your views and try to understand them would then have a great deal more respect for you and a much more positive attitude to your theories..

Edited June 19, 2009 by johnholmes

[Cycles]

I am not accusing David of circular reasoning here- that's not the only way you can end up with a debate going around in circles.

When this thread began my e-book was only available as a purchase only book.

It is now available free for all to download, or view without downloading. I will within 2 weeks have it available as a pdf manuscript on my other web site.

Now that it is free for all to view....let's start over, a fresh discussion.

We can go section by section in the pdf or book.

Because minimal similar research has been done by other researcher's, it is very difficult to prove my theory in regards to findings by other's. My reseach is likely breaking new ground, and not just repeating research done by other's.

My research shows the relationship of natural temperature and carbon dioxide cycles with lunar declination gravitation cycles...this research stands alone, and I am not hiding from or behind my theory.

I suggest we discuss my findings in detail... especially the past temperature and carbon dioxide cycles.

This is unique research and findings, so I will not be referring to other researchers, mainly because very little has been done within this field by other's.

You ask the questions on my findings and I will reply as well as I can....have absolutely nothing to hide. This includes the El Nino, and the natural cycles of carbon dioxide/temperatures in relation to lunar declination cycles.

Best Regards

David

[Cycles]

That's the argument you used the last time, but then you said there were sources that addressed those old flaws. I can't really comment on the former as I cannot find any other internet sources where people have voiced their views on this theory- but the latter would be an inaccurate assertion.

This is the root of problem. You brought up the comment saying there are old flaws. I reallly do not know where you are coming from, or where you got this, especially because you commented that you could not "find any other internet sources where people have voiced their views on this theory".

It looks like something from the past has been taken out of context somehow. We are as you said "going cirucular here".

Shall we begin anew as I suggested in my post just prior to this one?

Regards

David

[Thundery wintry showers]

Surely I made it pretty clear that the flaws were pointed out within that discussion? It's not out of context at all. However I will try to read the revised theory's document when I have time and see if it is particularly convincing.

[Cycles]

Surely I made it pretty clear that the flaws were pointed out within that discussion?

It's not out of context at all.

However I will try to read the revised theory's document when I have time and see if it is particularly convincing.

Within what discussion?

The theory's document is the original document released in July 2008 and now provided free of charge.

Regards

David

Edited June 19, 2009 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Thundery wintry showers]

That old discussion from 2007 which you said was ancient and out of date due to the amended theory (2008 revision)?

[Cycles]

That old discussion from 2007 which you said was ancient and out of date due to the amended theory (2008 revision)?

The one from my preliminary work which was not in print, only discussed as a theory at the time. This wa about 14 months before my book was released.

The e-book is greatly updated.

David

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The one from my preliminary work which was not in print, only discussed as a theory at the time. This wa about 14 months before my book was released.

The e-book is greatly updated.

David

Why you had to say this again and again I don't know, it seemed absolutely obvious to me. Sorry guys [tws] but it seems to me you are trying to shut him down before he has even started...and there is a history of that happening on here.

BFTP

[johnholmes]

BF I for one am not trying to 'shut him (GWO) down' as you put it, nor do I think TWS is, just trying to get direct answers.

I would like to see GWO give some direct answers when those who are sceptical or simply ask a question.

It must be difficult trying to get an idea not accepted in most circles to be constructively discussed and I can understand GWO feeling 'got at'. However when we ask a question please GWO give us a direct answer from now on.

I will, when I get the time, read the whole output from you, think about it and come back with questions.

As a professional meteorologist of over 40 years I can honestly say I have never totally dismissed any new idea I have ever been shown, be it yours, old ideas from people with no meteorological training or the AGW/GW debate.

Edited June 20, 2009 by johnholmes

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Why you had to say this again and again I don't know, it seemed absolutely obvious to me. Sorry guys [tws] but it seems to me you are trying to shut him down before he has even started...and there is a history of that happening on here.

BFTP

I totally agree with you

I'm getting a bit fed up now with the unreasonable 'crusade' that seems to going on regarding GWO and his work on natural causes. I'm not sure what David is supposed to do next - give blood? He has provided his e-book for all to see, read, and then form conclusions (on the basis one would hope of constructive criticism). He has waived his fee (which wasn't unreasonable in the first place) after being hounded incessantly about that. He has said, numerous times, that his research is unique in its method and yet the demands keep coming for peer reviews. Tough -basically. If it is new and unique than there is bound to be a shortage of people to review it. Why can't people accept that? It is hardly his fault that no such thesis exists before. Maybe that is the problem - because no-one else has gone down this road before - it is easy to be sceptical of it.

Scepticism is fine - no-one has to believe it in the same way that no-one has to believe AGW hypothesis. But the actual science within his work is being ignored at the expense of what appears,frankly, to be a witch hunt to discredit him and bring him down.

Sorry - but it had to be said. End of rant.

Edited June 20, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

NSSC, surely, as with Jethro's I.V. Polyakov, you have your shot but then ,when circumstances blow you out of the water, you re-assess your position and fall in with where the data points you???