Global Weather Oscillations

[Chris Knight]

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...

Except, with respect, Pete, there is no co-relation between the steady average rate of increase of a minor atmospheric component greenhouse gas (CO₂), and the ups and downs of the average global temperature anomaly of the last 300 years. Any correlation here, too, is "magical", or belief-based.

[Cycles]

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...

Actually the PFM lunar cycles are much in tandem with the Milankovitch cycles, but not totally with the maunder minimums. Believe it was asked in an earlier post about correlating with solar, but what I have seen the sunspot cycles did not correlate with the cooling from 1800 to 1850, but the PFM did. Maunder mininum correlated with the little ice age, and so did the PFM. Therefore it appear the PFM is a better match to climate than the solar.

I can address this and more questions in detail a little later. And with Roger back on, this will be helpful.

Regards

David

[Cycles]

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.

Many researchers all around the world are trying to piece a very larger puzzle together. Part of the puzzle is focused on the issue of how the Arctic and Antarctic warm, and they simply do not know the dynamics. For instance; has the jet stream moved north, and if why? Has the northern latutdes pressure cells (high and low) changed, and why and how? Is it the ocean currents? Many questions researchers cannot and do not understand. They do not even understand exactly how the exchange of warm air from the subtropics mingles with Arctic air, or should I say what is predominant.

In my research I reviewed computer generated lunar events, sorted relationships of various lunar events such as monthly full and new moons, and the apogeee and perigee cycles (apogee being the moon furthest approach to earth, and perigee the closest), plus the earth's perigee and apogee to the sun. I ran the data back over 1000 years, very time consuming picking out the strongest occurences of the lunar cycles. I then plotted the findings with reconstructed temperatures and looked for the appropriate mean long-term declination cycles...end result being the approximate 200-230 year cycles corresponding to the global warming cycles.

All research was done on my own time, no funding from energy companies, governmente...in other words, no outside funding, it was all at my own expense. If I have had the resources, both financially and people wise, much more could be done.

End result is, I researched and analyzed findings to be placed in a book, this in hopes of bringing awareness too researchers around the world, and the general public. By doing so, I am here to answer and provide information to the best of my knowledge. But, it is limited simply due to the fact that science does not know how the atmosphere interacts not only with the earth's oceans and sun, and to a lesser extent the moon which very well may be the most important climate forcing mechanism (aside from the season tilt of the earth).

Hope this helps some,

Regards

David

[Cycles]

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?

\

North Sea

Your statements in the first 2 paragraphs appear very reasonable. Here in the states we did not see arctic highs penetrating southward from the 1980s to about 2007, then a reappearance in 2008-09. The strength and decay of the polar vortes also has a relationship seasonally with the PFM strength, and this is why we see changes from one year to the next, and this is why we see El Nino events approximately every 4-years on the PFM cycle...25 PFM cycles since about 1915 and 25 ENSO events...no PFM cycles without an ENSO.

Regards

David

[johnholmes]

I'll have a few more comments/questions David later this evening!

This thread is a credit to all those who believe what David has postulated in his e book and those who tend to disbelieve, are sceptical, or just plain don't know.

It does show that we can all contribute to a discussion without resorting to ya boo which so often appears in other climat threads.

thanks to everyone-David not least for being willing to undergo the questions and trying to answer.

fascinating thread whether one believes or does not believe.

[johnholmes]

I hope the attached opens David- and for everyone else

reply togwo-david-6 aug 2009.doc

[Cycles]

I hope the attached opens David- and for everyone else

reply togwo-david-6 aug 2009.doc

JohnHolmes says...As to your comment about the US showing similar to the rest of the world in the graph-Fig 5 on page 11 then that is really not true David.

I accept that the US and the world chart both show a drop from the 1940’s or thereabouts but whereas the US shows the level only returning to pre 1940 by towards 2000 on your graph, in the one below, they can be accessed all over the web, shows it had returned to pre 1940 levels by 1980.

this is its link-from NASA

Reply from GWO...I am not sure what you mean by "both show a drop from the 1940’s or thereabouts but whereas the US shows the level only returning to pre 1940 by towards 2000 on your graph"

Exactly what level are you referring to John? All in all both graphs are quite similar, at least for the purpose of showing the PFM relationship to the 2 temperature peaks (1930s and near 2000).

[johnholmes]

very simple David and I'm sure everyone can see what I mean

the USA plot shows that the temperatures get back to 1940's level in 2000

the world graph shows this occurring in 1980-some 20 years earlier!

my question now is why is there a difference and why use the USA one not the world graph if you are referring to world temperatures?

[Solar Cycles]

very simple David and I'm sure everyone can see what I mean

the USA plot shows that the temperatures get back to 1940's level in 2000

the world graph shows this occurring in 1980-some 20 years earlier!

my question now is why is there a difference and why use the USA one not the world graph if you are referring to world temperatures?

Sorry David, but that's what I would like to know also?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Ok David and folks.

Looking at the graph above we see 4 distinct sections, two negative periods and two positive periods. It is easier to work backwards, the reason being that it is known that the La Nina Perturbation cycle started on Feb 07 and so prior to that it was El Nino cycle etc etc. This is an approx 36 year cycle and if we go back approx 36 years in each chunk I suggest that there is a good match [never perfect as IMO there isn't a single driver but a main driver of climate] with regards to the NAO. This is a solar driven cycle which in turn IMO is intrinsically linked to planetary forcings and lunar cycles.

thoughts please

BFTP

Edited August 7, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Cycles]

very simple David and I'm sure everyone can see what I mean

the USA plot shows that the temperatures get back to 1940's level in 2000

the world graph shows this occurring in 1980-some 20 years earlier!

my question now is why is there a difference and why use the USA one not the world graph if you are referring to world temperatures?

Page 11 mainly talks and refers to the U.S. temperatures, with a side note they were similar to the world temperatures. The trend U.S. and global were quite similar, both peaking in the 1930s and after 1990. I was not referring to the upward trend, but the peaks. So on this particular page I was talking mainly U.S. and referring to a clear graph. Global temperatures were explained in more detail later on in the paper.

Yes John, in retrospect I could have included the global graph as well, but I did not see a need at that particular point, the global temperatures were used extensively once I referred to the reconstructed 1000 year temperatures later on in the paper.

So yes there are some minor differences in the 2 graphs you pointed out, but not enough to discount the twin temperature peaks and what I was referring too.

Thank you for looking closely, and if the book were to be updated, I would include both graphs.

Regards David

[Cycles]

Ok David and folks.

Looking at the graph above we see 4 distinct sections, two negative periods and two positive periods. It is easier to work backwards, the reason being that it is known that the La Nina Perturbation cycle started on Feb 07 and so prior to that it was El Nino cycle etc etc. This is an approx 36 year cycle and if we go back approx 36 years in each chunk I suggest that there is a good match [never perfect as IMO there isn't a single driver but a main driver of climate] with regards to the NAO. This is a solar driven cycle which in turn IMO is intrinsically linked to planetary forcings and lunar cycles.

thoughts please

BFTP

Nice graph BFP. It could also be an approximate 70-year and 36-year cycle. The 70-year being from the beginning of the first positive NAO around the year 1900 to the beginning of the second positive NAO phase in 1970. And then the two approximate 36-year positive phase cycles The 70-year cycles coincide well with the PFM cycles, and the 36-year cycles are between these two goal posts (so to speak).

It is good having posts, suggestions, new knowledge and insights posted on this thread. Believe we are all gaining from this.

Regards

David

[Iceberg]

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.

Regards

David

Sorry David just picking up on this again.

If the monthy graviational change of the moon can move the HP cell by 1.5 degree's north or south depending on the cycle then what is the gravitational force that moves it by 7 or 8 degree's ?, has this force 7 or 8 times the force of the monthly gravitational effect. ?

In your example the Jet stream moved north from 98-07 over western Europe. However all data indicates that the reverse occured and the Jet moved south between 98 and 07.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sorry David just picking up on this again.

In your example the Jet stream moved north from 98-07 over western Europe. However all data indicates that the reverse occured and the Jet moved south between 98 and 07.

Iceberg

Can you show us this data that shows the jet moved SOUTH between 98 and 07? That seems somewhat odd.

Found this little piece.

Jetstreams possibly moving:-

During 2007, 2008, 2009 the Jet Stream has been at an abnormally low latitude across the UK, lying above the English Channel rather than lying north of Scotland. However, between 1979 and 2001, it has been found that the position of the jet stream has been moving northward at a rate of 2.01 kilometres (1.25 mi) per year across the Northern Hemisphere

BFTP

Edited August 24, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Iceberg]

No probs it's taken from the NAO which has been declining since around 98 I think. (I posted a updated graph a few pages back).

I fully accept that the NAO isn't a perfect fit for the JET around the whole globe, but it's a pretty good indication of the Jet in NW Europe.

cheers

[Methuselah]

Okay, guys...I've been reading this GWO stuff for a few years now; and, I'm not impressed...

Please, tell me something 'I don't want to know'.?

[Cycles]

Sorry David just picking up on this again.

If the monthy graviational change of the moon can move the HP cell by 1.5 degree's north or south depending on the cycle then what is the gravitational force that moves it by 7 or 8 degree's ?, has this force 7 or 8 times the force of the monthly gravitational effect. ?

The monthly displacement of the HP cell coincides with the moon moving northward for 13 days, and then southward for 13 days. Thus the monthly displacement coinciding with the monthly change in the declination (apparent position of the moon above or below the earth's equator).

During longer periods, the mean position of the moon is northward or southward for a much longer period of time, with this causing a longer period of displacement of lunar declination cycle. Every 4-years the moon reaching a high declination of 18 to 28 degrees of latitude, with the highest declinations coming every 18 years, and the lowest-high declinations mid way between the 18 year cycles. The jet stream likely had its northern most displacement around 1998 and then very slowly settled southward, witht the greatest southward mean displacement during the past 1 to 2 years.

I can try to explain this more as we go along.

Regards

David

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The monthly displacement of the HP cell coincides with the moon moving northward for 13 days, and then southward for 13 days. Thus the monthly displacement coinciding with the monthly change in the declination (apparent position of the moon above or below the earth's equator).

During longer periods, the mean position of the moon is northward or southward for a much longer period of time, with this causing a longer period of displacement of lunar declination cycle. Every 4-years the moon reaching a high declination of 18 to 28 degrees of latitude, with the highest declinations coming every 18 years, and the lowest-high declinations mid way between the 18 year cycles. The jet stream likely had its northern most displacement around 1998 and then very slowly settled southward, witht the greatest southward mean displacement during the past 1 to 2 years.

I can try to explain this more as we go along.

Regards

David

David

Wasn't 2006/7 when we last had the northern maximum declination 18.6 year cycle? I have seen research showing that the jetstream continued northward migration into the 2000s and that it seems that the southward kick has started since the last max declination ie last 3 years [and visibly so now]. Iceberg's jetstream analysis refers to the NAO state and UK and western Europe but it is shown that the jetstream continued northward after 1998. I also disagree with Iceberg that the jetsream over here moved south after 1998 [summer and winter synoptics pre 2007 over here don't support that] so I don't see the NAO being a useful correlation at all.

BFTP

[Iceberg]

The NAO is the best method of measuring the Jet Stream position across Western Europe that we have, unless anybody knows of a better method.

Here's the diagram again which shows the downward trend of the NAO (before 1998), the line is at 1998. It starts at 1950 and ends this year.

There is no doubt that the strong negative NAO that we have experienced recently goes with the more southerly Jet.

However a negative NAO doesn't mean cold without the negative AO, which we have been lacking.

By and large in recent years we have lacked the blow torch SWerly's.

I am happy to accept other evidence about the southerly tracking track stream/or northerly tracking jetstream.?

RE the GWO theory I am confused now does the GWO theory say that the Jet stream will move north or south over the last 10 years, as both seem to have been said ?.

I understand the high and very high declination cycles but what I don't know is the magnitude of the graviational effect between the cycles. i.e is a high cycle 3 times stronger than a normal cycle and a very high cycle 3 times stronger still ?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I mentioned the issue about the AO/NAO correlation on this thread a few weeks back. It is true that the state of the AO in a neutral/especially positive mode will offset any -NAO. Pressure needs to be high at the pole in order for cold air to be displaced away from it. I suggested a cycle whereby cold air or warmer air in cycle patterns might build between equator/pole (the direction north/south or south/north depending on the trend)

As an example, last winter we saw a jet stream displaced further south into europe on a NW-SE axis across the atlantic - energy split on the pacific coast and the southern arm was stronger than has been seen. However the AO struggled to go negative, apart from brief periods Dec/Jan and then again early in Feb. This meant that the coldest air remained at a higher latitude than would have been seen had the AO gone negative and high pressure was seen at a higher latitude, for longer, than was the case. We saw a good -NAO at the end of Dec but this was not sustained due to the AO being neutral (weakly negative briefly) at best.

However, all that said, the effects on mid latitude temps across large parts of europe and USA were still seen clearly enough, despite the coldest air staying further north than otherwise might have been the case.

What all this means, is that extrapolated on the longer terms cycle, and in tandem with Davids analysis we can see the real potential cooling effects long term of a sustained southerly tracking jet stream underpinned by a -AO. Only need to look at 62/63 winter for that.

I would be interested to know from David how the declination cycles influence the pressure at the pole and hence the state of the AO A large part of this concerns the stratosphere as well - as the state of the stratosphere and its interaction with the tropospheric weather patterns in turn influences the state of the polar field and the AO, amongst other factors, in turn affecting the dominating trajectory of the jetstream and the NAO etc as illustrated above.

Ideas on this would be extremely interesting and valuable here imo

Edited August 25, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[VillagePlank]

Okay, guys...I've been reading this GWO stuff for a few years now; and, I'm not impressed...

Please, tell me something 'I don't want to know'.?

Well, there is some evidence to suggest that sunspots are affected by the motions of the big planets. Connect sun-spots to weather (not just climate) and then you have a feasible possibility.

[MR EXTREMES]

David

Wasn't 2006/7 when we last had the northern maximum declination 18.6 year cycle? I have seen research showing that the jetstream continued northward migration into the 2000s and that it seems that the southward kick has started since the last max declination ie last 3 years [and visibly so now]. Iceberg's jetstream analysis refers to the NAO state and UK and western Europe but it is shown that the jetstream continued northward after 1998. I also disagree with Iceberg that the jetsream over here moved south after 1998 [summer and winter synoptics pre 2007 over here don't support that] so I don't see the NAO being a useful correlation at all.

BFTP

i agree BFTP i remember watching a program a couple of years ago and the met o saying it had shifted way north.

but also stated the wet summer was due to the jet being futher south.

i think it was called the jet stream and us< correct me if im wrong>.

and since that tv documentry it has moved futher south and seems to spending alot of time there.

[Cycles]

I would be interested to know from David how the declination cycles influence the pressure at the pole and hence the state of the AO A large part of this concerns the stratosphere as well - as the state of the stratosphere and its interaction with the tropospheric weather patterns in turn influences the state of the polar field and the AO, amongst other factors, in turn affecting the dominating trajectory of the jetstream and the NAO etc as illustrated above.

Ideas on this would be extremely interesting and valuable here imo

I agree it would be interesting, I have not had time to look at everything. Very busy with other company functions, research and forecasting. Hopefully I can team up with some of you in the near future, use my research along with your knowledge and facilities.

Regards

David

[Cycles]

I understand the high and very high declination cycles but what I don't know is the magnitude of the graviational effect between the cycles. i.e is a high cycle 3 times stronger than a normal cycle and a very high cycle 3 times stronger still ?

A strong high declination cycle is about 45 percent stronger than mean cycles. The highest declination cyclical cycles would normally portray the strongest gravitation on the earth, due to the closer proximity of the moon to earth. Thus long term cycles (either 9 year or 230 year cycles) would have the strongest values followed by a weakening. We know that oceans have a daily slosh due to the daily lunar cycles, and also monthly and 6 monthly cycles. This slosh may also be in the atmosphere, and in conjunction with the oceans to some degree. Yes we do not know all the answers, and yes there should be major funding by governements around the world to research these links.

Regards

David

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I agree it would be interesting, I have not had time to look at everything. Very busy with other company functions, research and forecasting. Hopefully I can team up with some of you in the near future, use my research along with your knowledge and facilities.

Regards

David

No problem - the best answers always come when they are not rushed