Global Weather Oscillations

[jethro]

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???

Oh you are funny.

The alternative reality is that life/family have come first and this being my first visit here since yesterday lunchtime, I haven't had the time to digest, much less respond to the stuff you say blows me out of the water.

This isn't California, I'm not over six feet, nor do I look like I breakfast on steroids but I'll be back when I've digested your explosive data.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

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???

You mean as CO2 keeps rising the earth cools?

BFTP

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.

John

He did. The report/review TWS refers to was pre - complete research by GWO hence was an out of date rebuttal. His work is unique so peer reviews are not around yet or will be in extremely short supply. It is a fascinating book and research and the correlations are somewhat startling [i won't give a percentage but stark they are] and current climatic global response and southward movement of the jet is also very interesting.

regards

BFTP

[Cycles]

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.

John

He did. The report/review TWS refers to was pre - complete research by GWO hence was an out of date rebuttal. His work is unique so peer reviews are not around yet or will be in extremely short supply. It is a fascinating book and research and the correlations are somewhat startling [i won't give a percentage but stark they are] and current climatic global response and southward movement of the jet is also very interesting.

regards

BFTP

Thank you BFTP

I am trying and willing to answer questions...however critical remarks appear to be coming from those who want to be critical, but are unwilling to thoroughly read my book (which is free online).

All information in the book has references and are factual, and this includes the natural carbon dioxide cycles. Has no one read the tables on natural carbon dioxide rises?

We can post each table for reveiw.

Sorry for the mild rant here, but I would like people to read information in the book before providing a critical reply.

Regards

David

[johnholmes]

Thank you BFTP

I am trying and willing to answer questions...however critical remarks appear to be coming from those who want to be critical, but are unwilling to thoroughly read my book (which is free online).

All information in the book has references and are factual, and this includes the natural carbon dioxide cycles. Has no one read the tables on natural carbon dioxide rises?

We can post each table for reveiw.

Sorry for the mild rant here, but I would like people to read information in the book before providing a critical reply.

Regards

David

that is exactly what I've promised to do David and you won't see me making any comment, critical or otherwise, until I've read it. Once I've read it I hope you will answer any question directly though?

[Cycles]

that is exactly what I've promised to do David and you won't see me making any comment, critical or otherwise, until I've read it. Once I've read it I hope you will answer any question directly though?

I was not pointing my mil.d rant at you directly John, so please do not take this personally. It was directed toward posters in general, on all forums, all sites, and on all subjects (not just my subject).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Time to bring this back to the forefront again. A big part of GWO research that stands out is that the lunar cycle is going to shift the HP sytem belt and bring the jet back on a more southerly track. Now looking at what has happened over the UK since 07 and looking at the US too it does seem that thus far the jet is kicking south in line with GWO predictions. Early days but for me an up to now interesting [and exciting] development. Thoughts?

BFTP

[Chris Knight]

Time to bring this back to the forefront again. A big part of GWO research that stands out is that the lunar cycle is going to shift the HP sytem belt and bring the jet back on a more southerly track. Now looking at what has happened over the UK since 07 and looking at the US too it does seem that thus far the jet is kicking south in line with GWO predictions. Early days but for me an up to now interesting [and exciting] development. Thoughts?

BFTP

Those following this thread may be interested in this link "A Case for Climate Cycles: Orbit, Sun and Moon" by W.H. Berger, J. Pätzold and G. Wefer 2002 is worth reading.

One insight which I hadn't thought about before is that any (external or cosmic) cycle of influence is affected by season (on earth, and in all latitudes, with whatever differential effect that may have), and thus of greater or lesser effect each time each cycle is at its maximum influence.

[Iceberg]

Hopefully these are reasonable questions, I've read you E-booklet but have not seen them mentioned anywhere.

What is the power of the gravitational force which is going to pull the HP cells and by consequence the Jet streams north and southwards ?.

Below I posted something on the gravitational effects of the moon and the amount of power they seem to have. I know that Chris did provide an answer however it got missed in the thread, but it doesn't really provide any facts and figures.

You've mentioned various cycles what is the variance of each cycle in comparison to a) the daily cycle and the total amount of lunar gravitational effect.?

"One thing I've never understood is that the daily effects of the moons are far greater than anything else, yet nobody has noticed these HP cells moving in connection to this, unlike the sea.

Secondly the sea moves by a few meters at most given the very large daily changes of the Moon pull, yet we think again that the HP cells can move 1000's of miles ?.

Thirdly can we quantify these gravitational changes. For example a quick look would seem to indicate that the moon exerts a force of 1/300000th of a bodies weight and that the position of the moon on a daily basis varies this effect by one 30th so a 10,000,000th of a bodies weight. With effects this small I am uncertain how it has the effects it's reported to have."

This might have been asked before but how does a migration of the Jetstream effect the heat balance of the earth ?. I can see how it might make some areas warmer and other cooler by changing the location of the heat transfer mechanisms between equator and pole, but not the earths heat balance in general.

If the force is strong enough to move the HP cells then is there also a correlation between tidal gravitation forces and atmospheric gravitional forces.?

[Cycles]

Hopefully these are reasonable questions, I've read you E-booklet but have not seen them mentioned anywhere.

What is the power of the gravitational force which is going to pull the HP cells and by consequence the Jet streams north and southwards ?.

Every 6 months the moon portrays stronger gravitational forcing on the earth's oceans and atmosphere. These particular cycles cause tidal forcing about 45% greater than mean forcing of the moon. Lesser forcing occurs monthly with the full and new moon cycles. Then greater forcing every 6 months, about 4-years, 9-years 18-years, 72-years, 230-years, 116,000-years, 450,000-years. These are all approximate cycles for simplification.

The semi-permanent HP cells have a mean position near 25-30 degrees latitude, north and south. The approximate 4-year strong lunar cycle reaches 20 to 29 degrees north and south, and 0 to 18 degrees north and south between the 4-year cycles. Thus the declination of 20-28 degrees for 1-year period then changes to lower latitudes for the next 2 or 3 years and then back to high declination. These changes pull the HP just like a magnet pulling a piece of metal.

"One thing I've never understood is that the daily effects of the moons are far greater than anything else, yet nobody has noticed these HP cells moving in connection to this, unlike the sea.

The sea and air both act like a liquid, however the density of the sea let's it respond to the daily cycles, whereas the thinness of the atmosphere responds slower.

This is why the HP drift is during the 13 day period the moon is moving north, and then during the 13 day period it is moving southward. Mean displacement of the HP's is only about 3 degrees of latitude durng a month, a little larger displacement is likely during the 6-month cyle, and of course during a 9-year and 72-year cycle...during these cycles the moon is either higher or lower in declinations by 2 to 3 degrees for an extended period of time (several years or more).

This might have been asked before but how does a migration of the Jetstream effect the heat balance of the earth ?. I can see how it might make some areas warmer and other cooler by changing the location of the heat transfer mechanisms between equator and pole, but not the earths heat balance in general.

The migration of the jetstream would certainly effect the heat balance of earth. A more northward postion will trap arctic and antartic air further toward the poles and thus hinder polar air masses migrating to mid latitudes. And at the same time, warmer air would be transported further toward the poles, with more mixing of warmer air toward the poles.

The changes in HP migrations would likewise have some effects on oceans and their temperatures.

If the force is strong enough to move the HP cells then is there also a correlation between tidal gravitation forces and atmospheric gravitional forces.?

Older meteorological literature (in the 1940s and 50s) noted daily atmospheric tides. So yes, I believe these tidal forces are strong enough to cause changes in both the oceans and atmosphere.

I see netweather has a new page format since I last posted, so I hope my replies are fine.

I know I have not answered your questions in great depth, a lot of questions for 1 reply.

Best Regards

David

[johnholmes]

best you get prepared David

I'm on page 15 of your e book and already got a fair number!

[Cycles]

best you get prepared David

I'm on page 15 of your e book and already got a fair number!

Please post only 1 or 2 questions at a time so members of the forum are not overwhelmed, and can participate as well.

Regards

David

[Roger J Smith]

My own perspective is that lunar influences on the atmosphere are not only tidal (gravitational) but may have a larger component related to geomagnetic field disturbances. This perspective is based on my research findings that show a timing structure to lunar events. Ocean tides tend to maximize at predictable times in given locations, but there is a general raising of ocean levels when the moon aligns with the sun. Atmospheric tides probably follow this logic as well, but geomagnetic disturbances are more of an interference pattern than a cycle, and I am strongly convinced that the lunar effects on the atmosphere are mainly geomagnetic in their origins. The north-south oscillation of high pressure over the oceans may be somewhat more of a direct tidal influence.

I think the only way this is ever going to be resolved and established would be through case studies, the actual physical processes are just too diffuse and spread out over huge areas of the atmosphere to be "detected" in the direct way. It would be similar to our understanding of gravitation in general, we believe it because it is measured over thousands of cases. If independent researchers all found roughly similar effects relating the moon's orbit (especially its north-south declinations) to positions of high pressure over the oceans, then this concept might gain respect. I think Reid Bryson was convinced of this effect as long ago as 1950. I have no such reputation but I have basically believed in this for about half that time. However, I think the system is a very complex one that will remain empirical.

One illustration of the application of the theory could be seen in our LRF last winter, which was based in part on lunar analogues -- there was certainly a noticeable temperature cycle in sync with the lunar cycle of 27.3 days, with the warmer half of the cycle coming from about the northern declination maximum (which in winter 09 happened around perigee and always happens around full moon) to nearly the point of the southern declination max, then the temperature signal tended to drop rapidly, hitting a minimum in the days before northern max, and then rising sharply again. The amplitude of this cycle throughout the period was about 3 or 4 C deg.

This whole field of study is so complex, I have to admit to a very deep frustration at how slowly recognition of these things has advanced given the amount of work I've put into such ideas over more or less a working lifetime, and quite often I feel that I've wasted all this time and effort, despite seeing such obvious results of the validity of the theories. Meanwhile, so much attention is lavished upon the almost transparently invalid global warming theories that seem to have almost no permanent validation criteria other than being issued by large national weather agencies, a sort of "this is true because we say it is true" approach that has been very unconvincing to many, many skeptics. I sure wish I had this sort of free ride, because frankly, I feel the same way about my research, and it has better validation statistics.

[Iceberg]

Quite right David.

I'll just concentrate on the first answer for now.

Firstly thanks for your response.

Most of what you've said though is already covered in your book.

What I really want to know is not that the Ferrell cell for instances can be pulled a little bit by the strongest gravitational forces.

But for the cycles you mentioned " 6 months, about 4-years, 9-years 18-years, 72-years, 230-years,"

What is the the scale of this gravitation force roughly. I quoted the rough effect of the moon and the variance of the effect on the earth over the 28 day cycle.However I am looking at the maths I am not sure how 10,000,000th of a bodies weight in gravitional change is strong enough to move a HP cell by 3 degrees.

Those daily tides you mentioned are just the diurnal changes in HP arn't they and nothing to do with tides ?.

I think what I am try is saying is you have pointed our correlation, but there also needs to be evidence of causation.?

Hope this isn't confusing.

[Cycles]

My own perspective is that lunar influences on the atmosphere are not only tidal (gravitational) but may have a larger component related to geomagnetic field disturbances.

Ocean tides tend to maximize at predictable times in given locations, but there is a general raising of ocean levels when the moon aligns with the sun. Atmospheric tides probably follow this logic as well, but geomagnetic disturbances are more of an interference pattern than a cycle, and I am strongly convinced that the lunar effects on the atmosphere are mainly geomagnetic in their origins. The north-south oscillation of high pressure over the oceans may be somewhat more of a direct tidal influence.

I think the only way this is ever going to be resolved and established would be through case studies, the actual physical processes are just too diffuse and spread out over huge areas of the atmosphere to be "detected" in the direct way.

If independent researchers all found roughly similar effects relating the moon's orbit (especially its north-south declinations) to positions of high pressure over the oceans, then this concept might gain respect.

I think Reid Bryson was convinced of this effect as long ago as 1950. I have no such reputation but I have basically believed in this for about half that time. However, I think the system is a very complex one that will remain empirical.

One illustration of the application of the theory could be seen in our LRF last winter, which was based in part on lunar analogues -- there was certainly a noticeable temperature cycle in sync with the lunar cycle of 27.3 days, with the warmer half of the cycle coming from about the northern declination maximum (which in winter 09 happened around perigee and always happens around full moon) to nearly the point of the southern declination max, then the temperature signal tended to drop rapidly, hitting a minimum in the days before northern max, and then rising sharply again. The amplitude of this cycle throughout the period was about 3 or 4 C deg.

so much attention is lavished upon the almost transparently invalid global warming theories that seem to have almost no permanent validation criteria other than being issued by large national weather agencies, a sort of "this is true because we say it is true" approach that has been very unconvincing to many, many skeptics. I sure wish I had this sort of free ride, because frankly, I feel the same way about my research, and it has better validation statistics.

GWO David Response to Roger

I have highlighted important statemtments made by Roger.

I agree with most of your statement Roger. Dr. Reid Bryson certainly was on the right track back in 1948, however, peer pressure pushed him away from this very important research. And yes, if we could get the same "free media ride" as the AGW view, our research would likely take off.

I also agree with Roger that it is a very complex earth-moon-sun forcing, with both the gravitational forcing and geomagnetic variances. But I strongly feel the cycles of the moon is the predominant force concerning climate changes.

Roger has spent more time on the shorter daily to monthly variances than I. All should listen to Roger, he has very important information, and I feel between the two of us, we can answer most questions..although some questions will remain a mystery for now, there is very little literature available on this subject.

My ebook is a combination of my research and a composite of my research melded with other research. I have tried to tie many things together in order to provide a larger view of the climate change puzzle.

My book and research has been posted free for all to see, and this is in hope that it will open minds, pull researchers together to investigate a relatively unknown phenomena.

Best Regards

GWO David

[Iceberg]

I really am reading this but am struggling to see the causation that's needed and not just correlation as I mentioned above.

Roger, David,

Can you give some kind of ball park/estimates/numbers re the gravitational effects ?.

If it's the magnetic field then do you have values of how much the magnetic field varies with the moon, sun, etc as part of the cycles, particularly in comparison with normal variation.?

[Methuselah]

I have a question guys: how do geomagnetic fields interact with parcels of air?

[jethro]

I really am reading this but am struggling to see the causation that's needed and not just correlation as I mentioned above.

Playing Devils advocate here...

The exact same thing can be said about CO2 emissions. The "it works in the lab, it's established physics etc" doesn't provide the answer either.

[Cycles]

I have a question guys: how do geomagnetic fields interact with parcels of air?

Iceberg and Pete

Roger is a better expert on the geomagnetic fields. A couple months before Dr. Reid Bryson died, I asked him how the declination cycles pull HP cells northward and southward during the course of a month. His answer was that the graviational field of the moon accelerates the parcel northward or southward, he called it basic physics.

There is very little literatue available on this..if any.

I hope Roger can help some, and other's by looking online for information. But remember the field of the lunar cycles is between 18 to 28 degees north and south, and the Hadley HP cells are centered between 25 to 30 degrees north and south. Thus varitions within the lunar declination cycle displays tidal forcing within these latitudes.

Regards

David

[Methuselah]

Thanks David.

[Iceberg]

Playing Devils advocate here...

The exact same thing can be said about CO2 emissions. The "it works in the lab, it's established physics etc" doesn't provide the answer either.

I think the causation though with CO2 is that CO2 is a GHG it absorbs/reflects a certain wavelength of energy back to the earths surface etc etc.

We can disagree about it, certaintly wrt it's effects but their is a a causation, a method of interaction.

There is certainly a causation wrt to solar variance.

What I have yet to see is a causation for graviational effects or magnatism which puts us in the same factor of influence, Roger and David have put alot of effort into their theories so I am kind of assuming that there is a causal effect.

I am happy to look up Bryson (I am sure I've done that before, but have completely forgotten), but some facts and figures would be handy and would help support the theories.

[johnholmes]

I'll have some questions this evening-its a fscinating read David, so worth anyone downloading it as David has allowed that download to be free.

I for one will make a very modest payment David but I'll pm you.

[Iceberg]

Iceberg and Pete

Roger is a better expert on the geomagnetic fields. A couple months before Dr. Reid Bryson died, I asked him how the declination cycles pull HP cells northward and southward during the course of a month. His answer was that the graviational field of the moon accelerates the parcel northward or southward, he called it basic physics.

There is very little literatue available on this..if any.

I hope Roger can help some, and other's by looking online for information. But remember the field of the lunar cycles is between 18 to 28 degees north and south, and the Hadley HP cells are centered between 25 to 30 degrees north and south. Thus varitions within the lunar declination cycle displays tidal forcing within these latitudes.

Regards

David

I think I am right in saying that the moon's gravitation effect on water and so one would assume the atmosphere is considerably less at the equator and within the tropics. Due to this I would expect the greatest extend of graviational effect to be around ourshores and Canada and southern New Zealand ?.

Surely if I am right it would lead to much less effect on things such as ENSO ?.

There was a map of the gravitation effect on the globe and how it varies does anybody have it ?.

[Cycles]

I think the causation though with CO2 is that CO2 is a GHG it absorbs/reflects a certain wavelength of energy back to the earths surface etc etc.

We can disagree about it, certaintly wrt it's effects but their is a a causation, a method of interaction.

What I have yet to see is a causation for graviational effects or magnatism which puts us in the same factor of influence

Actually we have not seen any causation with CO2 causing an increase in temperature, but rather the opposite may be true.

If you look at the mega 116,000 year temperature/CO2 cycles in the book (see my web site for the book), you see that as the temperatures peak CO2 lagging 800 years or so finally peaks also. But as temperatures come off the cycle and begin falling, CO2 remains high for a couple thousand years, then falls. So it is the rising temperature as a causation for increases in CO2, and falling temperatures as a causation for CO2 decrease. This is completely opposite of the hypothesis put forth by AGW.

Regards

GWO David

I'll have some questions this evening-its a fscinating read David, so worth anyone downloading it as David has allowed that download to be free.

I for one will make a very modest payment David but I'll pm you.

John, I thank you for your message, and I know you have many question which we can handle one at a time. As I indicated earlier today, Roger and I certainly do not have all the answers, but truely hope to lift this type of research.

Regards

David

[johnholmes]

with respect David I don't think that argument is any more correct than the one you disagree with.

CO2 and temperature changes APPEAR to be closely correlated but not necessarily directly related.

Neither IPCC nor yourself, have in my opinion, ever really shown that they are directly linked.

That said it will be a very brave or perhaps very foolish person to insist there is no link.

[Cycles]

with respect David I don't think that argument is any more correct than the one you disagree with.

CO2 and temperature changes APPEAR to be closely correlated but not necessarily directly related.

Neither IPCC nor yourself, have in my opinion, ever really shown that they are directly linked.

That said it will be a very brave or perhaps very foolish person to insist there is no link.

There is quite a bit of literature online concerning the natural CO2 feedback, this is undisputed. But they also do not know the extent of the feedback, and/or the true rates of absorption by plants, earth and the oceans.

The lag time of CO2 versus temperature rise is likewise documented, and is undisputed also. The IPCC has not been able to show CO2 rising prior to temperatures. Even since 1860 temperatures were rising anyway.

And the biggest undisputed fact is that following each mega 116 thousand year cycle the temperatures fell first with CO2 lagging several thousand years behind. If and I say, "IF", CO2 causes temperatures to rise, then temperatures could not of fallen after each of the 4 mega cycles noted since 450 thousand years before present. Earth would have been in runaway global warming duirng the full period from 450k bp to now.

Regards

David