Global Weather Oscillations

[Methuselah]

Why would Earth have been in a runaway greenhouse? IMO, when left to itself, intensive photosynthesis should act as a natural negative-feedback mechanism acting against such a scenario? All assuming of course, that in response to a serious deterioration in climate and its resultant reduction in photosythesis, CO₂ from natural sources would be free to build up in the atmosphere?

I'm not sure, but I have the impression that the actions of life in terms of climate-modification are being seriously overlooked?

[Cycles]

Pete

Exactly, there will not be runaway global warming. For several reasons, one of which you stated. And, earth could actually use higher CO2 levels, CO2 is a nutrient for plants. When the dinosaurs roamed, CO2 levels were higher, oxygen levels were higher, plant life was very robust.

David

[johnholmes]

In your reply to my comment David-your post No 1025, I still do not find anywhere were you or IPCC for that matter actually show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the temperature changes and the CO2 changes are linked.

Sure they appear to be in tandem.

Perhaps as much in tandem as your hypothesis that the major highs are moved by the effects of the moon. Your figures show a correlation in that they do change in about the same time step but once more you have no proof that this is an actual link.

Quite how you do that I’m not sure but for me, and I suspect others, to be convinced by your argument you, and again IPCC, must do this.

Perhaps we have to leave this as we agree to differ?

In your intro Page 1V you quote a 90% correlation between the PFM cycles and the natural rise and fall of the carbon dioxide cycles?

Is this something I will find as I read further into your book?

One rather puzzling statement from you in Ch 2 referring to diag 3 and Lake Vostok, you say, ‘This is very much like earth today’. How can the earth today be similar to that? In another part you mention that Antarctica had almost no ice. That is hardly the case today is it?

In chapter four you are using data shown in your Fig 5, which is for US temperature, to equate that to what happened at the same time over the whole earth. Now you know that has no basis in fact David so why use the US to try and illustrate the earth? Local effects, be they in the US, Europe or Asia are not necessarily an earth wide event or happening.

Perhaps that is enough comment so far and I hope you can answer the questions I’ve raised.

Please understand I am not doing this to knock I am doing it for my own benefit and attempting to understand your very innovative ideas. I find the work done by Roger S equally fascinating but again I have little understanding of his theories but do try to pick up on some of them.

As a trained meteorologist I have never dismissed differing ideas to what I was taught and practiced.

[Cycles]

JohnHolmes said...In your reply to my comment David-your post No 1025, I still do not find anywhere were you or IPCC for that matter actually show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the temperature changes and the CO2 changes are linked.

Sure they appear to be in tandem.

GWO David answer...

I can live with the fact they are in tandem through history, this could also mean they are in a natural tandem now (but with the mega cycle still having a CO2 lag).

JohnHomnes asks... Your figures show a correlation in that they do change in about the same time step but once more you have no proof that this is an actual link.

Quite how you do that I’m not sure but for me, and I suspect others, to be convinced by your argument you, and again IPCC, must do this.

Perhaps we have to leave this as we agree to differ?

GWO David Replies...Perhaps we may have to agree to differ. But it would be quite a coincidence that the highs move north or south with the lunar declinations. Dr. Bryson used many case studies to determine the relationship, perhaps another researcher could likewise conduct a study.

JohnHomes asks...In your intro Page 1V you quote a 90% correlation between the PFM cycles and the natural rise and fall of the carbon dioxide cycles?

Is this something I will find as I read further into your book?

GWO David answer...this pertains to the mega cycles and the graphs are shown later on in the book. And the book likewise has graphs with the PFM cycles and warming cycles during the past 1000 years, and shows a better than 90& correlation to the temperatures.

HohnHolmes asks...One rather puzzling statement from you in Ch 2 referring to diag 3 and Lake Vostok, you say, ‘This is very much like earth today’. How can the earth today be similar to that? In another part you mention that Antarctica had almost no ice. That is hardly the case today is it?

GWO replies...meaning the cycle 450 thousand years ago when Lake Vostok experienced major melting. The current mega cycle which is peaking now and for the next 800 years is like the mega cycle 450k years ago. Thus this mega cycle will see major melting much like then, but with earth now entering cooling period much of this will be reserved for the next warming cycle...in a couple hundred years.

JohnHOlmes says...In chapter four you are using data shown in your Fig 5, which is for US temperature, to equate that to what happened at the same time over the whole earth. Now you know that has no basis in fact David so why use the US to try and illustrate the earth? Local effects, be they in the US, Europe or Asia are not necessarily an earth wide event or happening.

GWO David replies...you are correct in saying it may not totally represent the whole world, but it is a graph of temperatures for over a 100 year period. Thus if there were CO2 correlations, it should of showed up somewhere during this period, and it did not.

And, the U.S.graph does very much rememble the world reconstructed temperatures for the same time period, maybe not exact, but very close to show the non relationships, or relationships.

[johnholmes]

thanks for the replies David

back to the e book

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

David

I see you are online...no one seems to have picked up on why I brought this topic back to the forefront. For me the behaviour of the PFJ is very much in line with your findings and predictions....would you agree?

Also, this El Nino although this year rather than last, do you expect it to be shortlived as per original forecast?

Fred aka BFTP

Edited August 4, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Cycles]

David

I see you are online...no one seems to have picked up on why I brought this topic back to the forefront. For me the behaviour of the PFJ is very much in line with your findings and predictions....would you agree?

Also, this El Nino although this year rather than last, do you expect it to be shortlived as per original forecast?

Fred aka BFTP

The polar jet has been further south this summer, actually second summer in a row and during the past winter. The strong PFM cycle likely caused the Pacific High west of the United States to be stronger than usual, thus causing a strong ridge over far western U.S. and a trough in the east, thus stormy and cool over much of the eastern 2/3 of U.S.

This also caused a ridge in the North Atlantic. Conditions are now changing a little as the strong lunar PFM is subsiding.

So yes I agree with you, the jet has moved southward.

The El Nino formed on the tail end of the strong PFM cycle, and in a different location in the tropical South Pacific than normal. I do expect the El Nino to be a short lived event, and as Roger and I (especially Roger) have said, we expect a strong El Nino in a few years.

Regards

David

[Iceberg]

GWO,

Thanks for replying again, I am trying to leave AGW out of this thread to try and avoid it getting Off topic, so my appologies if I don't respond to you concerning the CO2/temp time lag.

Also my applogies if any of this comes across as agressive it's not meant to be I think it's just difficult discussing something this complicated over a forum, but try we must.

In response to my question about how your drivers can effect global temperature you said

"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."

This is true, however there is no correlation between the position of the Jet and global temperatures.? only the distribution of global temperatures which might be why there is closer correlation with US 48 state temps.

Is there any other way that this mechanism can effect GLOBAL temps. ?

I've looked up Bryson, but can't seem to find anything on the subject other than a couple of loose quotes do you have anything to show a link between Cells and gravitation changes caused by the moon ?.

The Studies you quoted in here and in your book would be helpful.

next question that I asked yesterday morning:

"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."

next question:

"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 ?."

and do you have a picture that shows how the gravitation effect changes around the globe

I realise there are alot of questions here David and appreciate your time to answer them.

[Methuselah]

Hi David.

I do have a fundamental problem regarding your claim, that moving the jet-stream will alter the earth's overall 'heat balance':

From what I learned of thermodynamics at Uni, a heat balance is merely energy in-energy out? So, as you can imagine, I readily accept Solar/Milankovitch Cycles as drivers of Climate Change. But, as far as the moon pulling lumps of air north-and-south is concerned, I'll need something more than a loose correlation.

Sorry to sound picky, David. It's just the way I am.

[Chris Knight]

Hi David.

I do have a fundamental problem regarding your claim, that moving the jet-stream will alter the earth's overall 'heat balance':

From what I learned of thermodynamics at Uni, a heat balance is merely energy in-energy out? So, as you can imagine, I readily accept Solar/Milankovitch Cycles as drivers of Climate Change. But, as far as the moon pulling lumps of air north-and-south is concerned, I'll need something more than a loose correlation.

Sorry to sound picky, David. It's just the way I am.

When I was young, I was taught to eat soup by taking the soup at the edge of the bowl, rather than at the centre - it was cooler, and the soup could be eaten faster, though remaining warm. If the spoon was just used to take soup from the centre of the bowl, there was a risk of burning your mouth or else blowing over the spoon, which was impolite, and having the dregs of the soup cold.

Same with a south-north position for the jet - it either takes heat from the surface where the surface is hotter, or where it is cooler, leading to different rates of cooling. QED.

[Iceberg]

I didn't understand a word of that Chris, sorry.

I've plotted NAO since 1950, very quickly and dirty.

It looks very similar to PDO though....Maybe there is a 40 year NAO cycle as well.

The NAO can act as a very very rough proxy for the position of the JET, not perfect, far from it. But it does show up the recent southerly jet and the strong northerly jet in the 90's.

Pretty much as expected it's largely neutral over the last 10 years.

What I am saying is that IF the PFM cycle can effect the position of the Jet then there should be a close correlation between the NAO and PFM.

I have to admit I can't see a 4,9 or 18 year cycle in there..

But does anybody have David's PFM cycle that he produced which can be compared against it ?.

I've also uploaded a NAO/ENSO graph again shows a patchy correlation which I would expect, but IF the same PFM mechanism effects NAO that effects ENSO I would expect to see a better correlation, if not a negative correlation.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Iceberg

[Methuselah]

When I was young, I was taught to eat soup by taking the soup at the edge of the bowl, rather than at the centre - it was cooler, and the soup could be eaten faster, though remaining warm. If the spoon was just used to take soup from the centre of the bowl, there was a risk of burning your mouth or else blowing over the spoon, which was impolite, and having the dregs of the soup cold.

Same with a south-north position for the jet - it either takes heat from the surface where the surface is hotter, or where it is cooler, leading to different rates of cooling. QED.

Yes Chris, but that's all just internal shuffling. It doesn't affect the overall energy balance; it neither adds heat nor subtacts it from the system. It just creates a more circuitous route towards equilibrium?

If anyone can demonstrate that lunar gravitational-shifting of air masses adds energy to or subtracts energy from the system, then fairy snuff...

PS: I remain to be convinced that lunar effects actually do move 'selected' airmasses up and down the globe as David claims. That said, I treat many of the more extreme claims of the AGW camp in just the same way...I am a sceptic!

[Cycles]

Hi David.

I do have a fundamental problem regarding your claim, that moving the jet-stream will alter the earth's overall 'heat balance':

From what I learned of thermodynamics at Uni, a heat balance is merely energy in-energy out? So, as you can imagine, I readily accept Solar/Milankovitch Cycles as drivers of Climate Change. But, as far as the moon pulling lumps of air north-and-south is concerned, I'll need something more than a loose correlation.

Sorry to sound picky, David. It's just the way I am.

I have attached findings by Dr. Bryson. The top figure is a graph extending just over a month. He found that as the Pacific High and sub tropical high move northward during the first 13 days of the lunar cycle, the high pressure systems also migrate northward. As the lunar declination lowers during the second half of the lunar month (13 days) the high cells migrate back to the south. The overall monthly displacement of the highs is close to 3 degrees of latitude. This of course is only over the course of a month. My theory is that higher declinations over the course of 9-years would likely displacement the highs by a greater latitudinal shift, possibly 5 degrees or so. This was seen in western Europe from about 1998 to 2007 when the mean storm track move from near France to almost 7-9 degrees latitude northward during much of the period.

This shift would of course cause the jet stream to being much further north, and the semi permanent highs to be further north.

The second picture shows the semi permanent highs centered near 25-30 degrees north and south laitude. The lunar declinations when high are between 25 to 29 degrees north and south. Thus the liklihood of strongest gravitational envelope being in these latitudes...however oceanic tides are greater to the north of this area in the northern hemisphere.

I've plotted NAO since 1950, very quickly and dirty.

It looks very similar to PDO though....Maybe there is a 40 year NAO cycle as well.

The NAO can act as a very very rough proxy for the position of the JET, not perfect, far from it. But it does show up the recent southerly jet and the strong northerly jet in the 90's.

Pretty much as expected it's largely neutral over the last 10 years.

What I am saying is that IF the PFM cycle can effect the position of the Jet then there should be a close correlation between the NAO and PFM.

I have to admit I can't see a 4,9 or 18 year cycle in there..

But does anybody have David's PFM cycle that he produced which can be compared against it ?.

I've also uploaded a NAO/ENSO graph again shows a patchy correlation which I would expect, but IF the same PFM mechanism effects NAO that effects ENSO I would expect to see a better correlation, if not a negative correlation.

Reason it does not show up is because it is a very complex relationship. There are periods where the correlations are with the high declinations of the moon (18 to 29 degrees), and then periods when the El Nino is in tandem with the equatorial declinations (0 to 9 degrees). I found this in my El Nino research (not published).

So we are looking at a very complex relationship, as I said. It does appear the PDO has a strong relationship to the PFM cycles, and although I have not looked at the NAO, would expect the same.

Regards

David

PS....trouble getting on my server today, and must travel to the big city for appointments in an hour, so may not be able to answer all questions today.

When I was young, I was taught to eat soup by taking the soup at the edge of the bowl, rather than at the centre - it was cooler, and the soup could be eaten faster, though remaining warm. If the spoon was just used to take soup from the centre of the bowl, there was a risk of burning your mouth or else blowing over the spoon, which was impolite, and having the dregs of the soup cold.

Same with a south-north position for the jet - it either takes heat from the surface where the surface is hotter, or where it is cooler, leading to different rates of cooling. QED.

The earth of course has natural ways of mixing warm to cold air, and vice versa. The sub tropical belt of highs transports warmer air into the mid latitudes and mixes with the atmospheric circulation in that general area, and the polar highs which are normal closed to some degree keep very cold air over the poles. However when the semi permanent highs are stronger, they are larger and thus push the semi-permanent lows northward, this provides more mixing into the higher latitudes. During colder winters the semi permanent highs move a little further south, this allows the Aluetian Low off of Alaska to be much stronger and further to the south, this allows more mixing of the polar jet southward.

Regards

David

[Iceberg]

I am not sure I'd agree with this bit.

"My theory is that higher declinations over the course of 9-years would likely displacement the highs by a greater latitudinal shift, possibly 5 degrees or so. This was seen in western Europe from about 1998 to 2007 when the mean storm track move from near France to almost 7-9 degrees latitude northward during much of the period.

This shift would of course cause the jet stream to being much further north, and the semi permanent highs to be further north."

I am not sure the Jet stream was much further between 1998 and 2007 David, see by NAO graph which would indicate the the period 1998-2007 the NAO was much lower(therefore the Jet further south) than the previous decade.

It would be good to hear from you when you have the chance.

[Methuselah]

Please David, can you detail the effect (be it gravitational or electromagnetic) by which this 'movement' of HPs is actioned? :lol:

[Chris Knight]

Yes Chris, but that's all just internal shuffling. It doesn't affect the overall energy balance; it neither adds heat nor subtacts it from the system. It just creates a more circuitous route towards equilibrium?

If anyone can demonstrate that lunar gravitational-shifting of air masses adds energy to or subtracts energy from the system, then fairy snuff...

PS: I remain to be convinced that lunar effects actually do move 'selected' airmasses up and down the globe as David claims. That said, I treat many of the more extreme claims of the AGW camp in just the same way...I am a sceptic!

Ah, "balance" - either there is climate change or climate equilibrium, or it appears at some time as one or the other. With open systems, only the potential for equilibrium exists, the balance may never be reached. Hence quasi-cycles, hysteresis loops and so forth. There are obvious reasons: the earth is not homogeneous, with irregular ocean and land masses existing within various circulating air masses at different temperatures in space and time. What's more, is that the atmosphere and oceans are in constant motion, so if there are irreproducible variations, and an imperfect method of energy measurement cannot elucidate the actual ins and outs, the internal shuffling is all we really have.

An approximately equal energy input is available each year to the upper atmosphere of earth. A variable amount of energy reaches variable portions of the surface during the year due to chaotically variable atmospheric chemistry, cloud and surface conditions. A variable amount of energy leaves the earth at variable surface locations each year due to variable atmospheric chemistry, clouds and surface conditions.

I don't think any of this is predictable, more than a day or two ahead. I would like to see some actual mathematics from David that define the shape of the "PFM" cycles, over the shorter and longer term cyles mentioned in the book, and some evidence of HP masses shifting in synchronicity with these cycles. I too remain a sceptic.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I didn't understand a word of that Chris, sorry.

I've plotted NAO since 1950, very quickly and dirty.

It looks very similar to PDO though....Maybe there is a 40 year NAO cycle as well.

The NAO can act as a very very rough proxy for the position of the JET, not perfect, far from it. But it does show up the recent southerly jet and the strong northerly jet in the 90's.

Pretty much as expected it's largely neutral over the last 10 years.

What I am saying is that IF the PFM cycle can effect the position of the Jet then there should be a close correlation between the NAO and PFM.

I have to admit I can't see a 4,9 or 18 year cycle in there..

But does anybody have David's PFM cycle that he produced which can be compared against it ?.

I've also uploaded a NAO/ENSO graph again shows a patchy correlation which I would expect, but IF the same PFM mechanism effects NAO that effects ENSO I would expect to see a better correlation, if not a negative correlation.

This is a very interesting post. I was wondering if the AO may be the bigger primary lynchpin here before the NAO in terms of the jet movement if we are assuming the PFM cycle is the initial controller of the jet stream trajectory. The NAO and the AO can work independantly of each other but to sustain a -NAO a -AO is required - otherwise the jet stream cannot hold southwards for very long.

But in terms of looking at the AO - a southward movement of the jet path in terms of assumed PFM forcing would mean a more frequent and sustained pattern that should lead to a colder pole once more as pulses of warm equatorial air do not penetrate as far north as often. This in turn increases ice and snow cover and hence albedo feedbacks which should encourage higher pressure as bigger cold pools develop in the longer winter months. This higher pressure at the pole in turn should lead to greater frequncies of expulsion of cold air to cool the mid latitudes and so on as a cooling cycle. As a -AO pattern occurs more frequently then in turn the NAO should be negative for longer periods of time - hence the jetstream is held south under the whole momentum of the pattern - with the PFM cycle assumed to be the catalyst in terms of enabling a sustained cooling cycle which encourages the -AO pattern and southerly jet courtesy of -NAO conditions which are enabled due to the changed pressure state of the polar field. If that would be right?

Effectively the opposite of what we have seen in the last couple of decades wherby the jet stream has shifted north and lows have been forming at higher latitudes as the boundaries between equatorial and polar air have moved north. The ferrel cells have been strengthened - assuming that the PFM has shifted the position of the equatorial highs northwards, and the polar cell has been weakened as a consequence.

Another link to consider is the state of the stratosphere and the relationship with the QBO which infleunces the seasonal development,strength and decay of the polar vortex. This relationship within other relationships must fit into the jigsaw too, but where in the chain within the context of the PFM as the assumed primary catalyst for moving the jet stream. Does the PFM forcing directly affect the stratosphere/troposphere relationship and impact on global weather patterns that way too or are changes here instigated more indirectly?

Edited August 5, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Iceberg]

I am reading and digesting it Tamara there is alot there to consider. With or without the PFM.!

[Cycles]

I am also digesting your post, very interesting. No one really knows exactly how gravitational cycles or geomagnetic cycles cause changes in the climate. Or for that matter, the dynamics which cause changes as you suggested. This is one reason why I have made my book available, open minds and discussion.

I will continue digesting your comment with interest.

David

[Roger J Smith]

I would like to add some comments that relate back to the questions over the past few days.

Before I get into that, I should say that it would be helpful if I could put together a document about my research theory, along the lines that David has done. What does exist already in that regard is an 80-page monograph (two or three copies are already in the UK and I think their owners might be willing to send them to new homes). Now this monograph is very much pre-internet in its design and style, but should be readable enough if a person is already familiar with academic papers and their style. For the layperson this approach might just bog down before getting any points across, depends on how much dense prose you can handle per unit of reading sessions.

There is also the material that I posted on Net-weather in the advanced learning forum from about 2005 to 2007 mostly. This gives some sort of overview as well, but I think quite a few regulars in this thread have seen that already.

As to the key questions and some possible answers, I have to admit that I find short answers difficult to compose, for me, the thing appears to work because of the ongoing pieces of the puzzle that are slowly falling into place. As I get on in years, I become rather frightened by the prospect that I am going to run out of time before putting together a coherent view of what has been discovered so far, but on the other hand, the fact that many others seem to be researching similar or related things encourages me to think that it will all "come out" sooner or later.

The gravitational pull of the Moon on our atmosphere must be considerable, if it is scaled in some way to the pull on the oceans. As I think I said before, the oceans have physical boundaries that cause this tide to accumulate and an empirical study of coastlines, tides and timing allows for reasonably accurate tidal tables. The only thing that can throw off these tidal tables is when atmospheric disturbances change the dynamics and force higher or lower peaks, lags in timing, etc. Right there is a clue that perhaps the systems are not unrelated. But that's not a definite proof, and I won't advance it as such. Rather, the atmosphere seems to absorb these tides into a boundary-free system of interference patterns. These might from first principles occur anywhere but statistically they seem to correlate with the magnetic field, so that instead of coastlines to collect the tides, we have quasi-stationary geomagnetic locations (in the forms of relatively curved longitudinal lines) that remain predictable locations for atmospheric disturbances.

However, I think that the geomagnetic interactions are probably larger than the gravitational interactions for the atmosphere. You have to bear in mind that the magnetic field is essentially the very top part of the atmosphere but that it extends with decreasing relative intensity down into the lower parts of the atmosphere. There are many indications that electromagnetism is strong in the atmosphere. Atmospheric boundaries generate charge differentials, electricity is discharged both in lightning and occasionally in other phenomena. The circulation itself seems to conform as much to the magnetic field as the rotational (latitudinal) parameters of the earth. Since the magnetic field has lines of equal force that are curvilinear relative to the regular grid of lat-long, the system that I have developed for timing lines and equal "meteo-latitude" tends to be a compromise between the two separate systems and may indicate that if the magnetic field were ever to shift to a higher angle to the rotational poles, we could see some very chaotic weather patterns as a result.

The whole science of magnetism on the cosmic scale is a very empirical science, so I don't feel like it is "just me" saying that these things are hard to quantify in a cause-effect relationship. We can measure the different magnetic fields of the planets and create theories linking magnetism to internal composition, rotational speed, importance of satellites, etc, but in the final analysis, we are presented with a fait accompli that does not necessarily need a theory of cause and effect to be useful information for us. Similarly, the existence of solar system magnetic field sectors is very much of an empirical study, I have found that this is a growing field of investigation and not only for its relevance to climate (which perhaps is something very few besides myself have investigated so far). These field sectors are not postulated to be enormously different from one another, in fact variations may be confined to a pretty narrow range like plus or minus 1 or 2 per cent. This seems to be just enough to set up the atmospheric variations we see, perhaps we should be thankful that there are not larger sector differences.

I am optimistic about these approaches mainly because of the long-term correlations I see in the data sets ... applying all of this to real time forecasting has had its ups and downs but this is probably part of the expectable ground-breaking activity, once again, my regret is that I have had to go at this in my spare time for much of my adult life, since nobody in the Canadian professional ranks wanted to support this research. In fact that situation has complicated matters further, because there is a natural tendency for people in other jurisdictions to think, "well, they've met him and dealt with him, and ..." ... I won't bother to finish that thought. The problem is partly cultural and political too, I was always perceived to be an outsider before I got into alternative research around the age of thirty, and for the rather ironic reason that I am from the UK (and I am certain that another irony is that in the UK ... another thought that I don't need to finish).

Why do I bother to go on with the research? Well, maybe I don't. My age and health are not what you would call encouraging factors. It could well be that I have done what I can already, and it could be game over at any point.

So I hope some people have made some notes on what I said, because who knows how much more there might be?

At some point, you feel an exasperation, like, "why the heck can't everyone see this, it is so obvious?"

I can imagine a few heads nodding in agreement there. And that's where at some point new science comes into existence, not just from cause and effect equations, insightful papers, etc, but just from the general agreement that yes, the continents are drifting, look, it's obvious. One day, I imagine, people will say "it seems kind of ridiculous nowadays that astro-climatology wasn't accepted earlier."

Anyway, I will continue to think about possible more convincing demonstrations of cause and effect from the myriad of data sets available to me here. Many of them are based on North American data, but I do have some based on the monthly CET now. It would have been really great had my professional peers not blown me off in the early 1980s, and gone off on their generational wild goose chase after the man-made climate theory, but it's all water over the bridge now.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I am also digesting your post, very interesting. No one really knows exactly how gravitational cycles or geomagnetic cycles cause changes in the climate. Or for that matter, the dynamics which cause changes as you suggested. This is one reason why I have made my book available, open minds and discussion.

I will continue digesting your comment with interest.

David

Hello David

I didn't put my points directly to you yesterday as you were already snowed under with plenty of replies to deal with!

This is a great debate and your subject matter is fascinating - I do hope that your line of research gains further attention and momentum in the weeks, months and years to come

Regards

Tamara

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Iceberg

I agree the relationship of jet and NAO is not strongly linked as -VE nao is not required for the jet to be on a southerly track...a la last winter.

It was posted by yourself somewhere of the NAO status over the last 150 years approx. What i was able to show was there seems to be a very good correlation of NAO -ve/+ve state with the 36 year [approx] perturbation cycle which controls the ENSO state. When perturbation is in La Nina phase a -ve NAO period kicks in and vice versa [well over the last 150 years it does anyway] so may be worth looking further into. Eg Perturbation kicked into La Nina phase in Feb 2007, it seems the jet has kicked south since. Prior to that we had El Nino phase since about 71/2 and the jet relentlessy shifted north and NAO was in +ve 'state'.

David can you look into this solar linked cycle and see how it interracts with the PFM?

BFTP

[Iceberg]

No one really knows exactly how gravitational cycles or geomagnetic cycles cause changes in the climate. Or for that matter, the dynamics which cause changes as you suggested.

David

I am still digesting the the relationships that where mentioned earlier.

However this comment is really what prevents me, at least at the moment, from thinking that this theory is correct.

If we don't know how the cycles effect the climate, if we don't know the dynamics which bring about the changes, if we can't accurately predict using this method, then there is very little to hook into to say that this does effect the climate. ?.

If there is a tight correlation between Gravitational happenings and ENSO, Global temperatures etc then we should be able to predict with some accuracy the effects, without the prediction rate there is no predictative correlation, no causal explanation and no maths/physics to back it up.

I will continue to try and understand this though and if you have time to answer the questions posed to you David it would be appreciated.

Roger it's good to see your thoughts, I have to admit gravitational effects are easier to understand and quantify than magnetic field effects, but I think some of the same principles still apply.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Iceberg

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Worth remembering once again here that AGW is hypothesis/theory though. We equally can't prove/predict assumed positive feedbacks 'outside the lab' wrt AGW hypothesis - so there is little difference here with David in terms of his good work in progress. There are indeed numerous unaswered questions related to the PFM, but that doesn't make it any less vaild than AGW as a possible mechanism in terms of its attributability to climate direction. Not saying that you have suggested any of that here btw. Just trying to keep a balance .

Regarding AGW there is global momentum that puts it forward on the basis of 'it is right because we say it is right'. Hugely uncertain areas in the science show that this way overstates such certainty. Davids own work 'could' ,arguably,be put forward on that basis too if he was able to get the greater coverage his work deserves.

I know you are only try to test the validity of this particular research - and that is a good thing with lots of interesting questions but it is worth keeping the background of the overall uncertainty wrt to any cause or feedback in mind as well. The question of time, and the amount of time needed to gauge future trends and using that time widely (and wisely) for research is very relevant once again here. There are not going to any quick decodings or solutions to any of the analyses involved unfortunately!

Edited August 6, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

But, a method of causation observable with a lab is arguably still a few steps ahead of something which has no method of causation attached to it at all?

A good question at this point might be: how come GHGs absorb/re-emit longwave radiation during laboratory-based spectroscopic analyses but, according to some, are transparent to those very same frequencies when they [said GHGs] are floating around in the atmosphere? Do CO₂, CH₄ and H₂O etc. gain some 'magical' quality during the process of being captured?

As I've tried to say before, I accept Milankovitch cycles, Solar cycles, plate tectonics and GHG-buildup as climate-forcers. But, as far as lunar-gravitation and Mercury's geomagnetic field are concerned, I'll need more than a correlation...