Global Weather Oscillations

[jethro]

Dear all,

Can I please make a plea for general discussions of AGW to take place over in the Climate Change thread.

Mr. Dilley didn't spam this site to promote his book, he responded to an invitation to discuss his theory. Instead of the usual second hand, reported quotes which raise doubts and questions as to what was actually said and what is media spin, we have the opportunity to hear it straight from the man himself - agree or disagree with the theory, that's got to be a good thing surely?

Whilst I sympathise with the view, that so far the information gleaned has been too little to reach any kind of informed opinion, we have to accept David has the right to expect renumeration for 19 years of work; we can all purchase the book at the very reasonable price of £5.00.

Perhaps, David you could give some kind of indication of how much of the content you are willing to discuss here, with those who have purchased the book?

[Cycles]

No, where did I say that? But global temperatures are at a historically high level.

Actually global temperatures are not at a historically high level, or at least not the highest.

Was not the Antarctic nearly void of ice 450,000 years ago. And if it was, then temperatures at that time must of been equal to or greater than what we are seeing today. And, we were not burning fossil fuels back then.

[smith25]

GWO i don't know if i missed this but could you please give us the details of the people who peer reviewed your research.

[Cycles]

Dear all,

Can I please make a plea for general discussions of AGW to take place over in the Climate Change thread.

Mr. Dilley didn't spam this site to promote his book, he responded to an invitation to discuss his theory. Instead of the usual second hand, reported quotes which raise doubts and questions as to what was actually said and what is media spin, we have the opportunity to hear it straight from the man himself - agree or disagree with the theory, that's got to be a good thing surely?

Whilst I sympathise with the view, that so far the information gleaned has been too little to reach any kind of informed opinion, we have to accept David has the right to expect renumeration for 19 years of work; we can all purchase the book at the very reasonable price of £5.00.

Perhaps, David you could give some kind of indication of how much of the content you are willing to discuss here, with those who have purchased the book?

Thank you Jethro

I just posted a snip of a 1000 year PFM/reconstructed temperature graph. It shows the prior 2 global warming episodes and the beginning of the current one which is now ending.

The graph shows the PFM on top and the reconstructed temps and global warming events on the bottom.

I am willing to discuss this graph and some other data in the book, especially with those that have looked at the book and thus have "first hand" knowledge of the content.

I will also accept and answer general questions from those whom have not read the book.

I believe Jethro is suggesting it is difficult for me (David GWO) to discuss or argue a point if the responder has not seen a particular graph or table.

GWO i don't know if i missed this but could you please give us the details of the people who peer reviewed your research.

4 Reviewers in all. One reason the e-Book is smaller than a regular book is because the reviewers wanted my research to stand alone and speak for itself. So it is not flowery to fill pages. It easily could of been 300 pages or more, but it is instead short and to the point.

The reviewers are a cross section of meteorologists. One is a former reviewer for a leading climate journal. One is a meteorologist that is also involved with a planetarium. Another is a former operational and management meteorologist with the National Weather Service in the U.S., and the other is a media meteorologist who always hears both sides of AGW and NGW.

If my work had been sent to a journal for peer review, it is likely some of the reviewers would not know all that much about the subject involved. So I believe the cross section is good.

[smith25]

4 Reviewers in all. One reason the e-Book is smaller than a regular book is because the reviewers wanted my research to stand alone and speak for itself. So it is not flowery to fill pages. It easily could of been 300 pages or more, but it is instead short and to the point.

The reviewers are a cross section of meteorologists. One is a former reviewer for a leading climate journal. One is a meteorologist that is also involved with a planetarium. Another is a former operational and management meteorologist with the National Weather Service in the U.S., and the other is a media meteorologist who always hears both sides of AGW and NGW.

If my work had been sent to a journal for peer review, it is likely some of the reviewers would not know all that much about the subject involved. So I believe the cross section is good.

Thankyou for that but what about their names. You claim they are happy to put their names to your work so im sure they won't mind. I'm just wondering why you didn't chose any climatologist to review. Also under your press releases across the net you mentioned the word peer review (sorry if this wasn't you) but here your stateing it hasn't been peer reviewed.

[Cycles]

I wonder what the source for the reconstructed temperatures is? It doesn't look (though it's only a brief window of time) like any one I'm familiar with.

Devonian,

Yes there are many reconstructions available, all considerable debate as to which one is most accurate. No matter which reconstruction I chose to use, there would be tremendous debate citing that the incorrect one was used. It really is a no win situation.

I looked at about 10 recreations, all of which appeared to have similar timing for the warming periods. The most obvious disrepencies appeared to be the magnitude of their warming or cooling periods.

Because of this, it appeared it would be a no win situation, no matter which one chosen would bring on a storm of comments wondering why that particular one was chosen, or that this particular one had great problems or errors.

So I decided to use the one with the most disputed errors or problems, and one of the earlier reconstructions. It was also thought that if (and it does) correlate well with this one, then it will likely do as well or better with any of the other ones. So I decided to use the Mann et al,the most disputed one of all of them.

The data is plotted all the way back to 1000 Ad, as is the PFM data. It correlates with little wiggle room to the beginning and ending of the 5 warming periods (this includes the ending of the cycle now ending). I believe his data properly showed the spatial time periods, but perhaps not the proper magnitudes, such as with the medieval cool period in Europe.

I did not have the time or resources to plot all available reconstructions...we can join together and do this in the near future.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank you, Mr Dilley, for kindly posting the graph. I have one question pertaining to the graph: how closely correlated are the PFM and global temperatures? I understand that the coincidence of peaks and troughs matches closely, but I see that the first PFM peak on your graph is higher than the second PFM peak, and yet the first temperature peak is lower than the second. Is this slight discrepancy explained by your theory, and if so then what is it that held back the temperatures when there was a greater influence by the PFM?

Many thanks,

CB

EDIT - I see that you posted fractionally before I did and I think you have answered my question - would other temperature reconstructions correspond more closely with the PFM?

Edited July 16, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Cycles]

Thankyou for that but what about their names. You claim they are happy to put their names to your work so im sure they won't mind. I'm just wondering why you didn't chose any climatologist to review. Also under your press releases across the net you mentioned the word peer review (sorry if this wasn't you) but here your stateing it hasn't been peer reviewed.

Smith,

The original press released said it was peer reviewed, and the book abstract and/or forward says peer reviewed by 4 meteorologists.

I would of chosen a climatologist, however many employed meteorologists and/or climatologists in the U.S. shy away from being connected in anyway to NGW (Natural GW), very political. I do not feel it is my place to post the reviewers names on the site without their permission. Their names can be found in the book,

[smith25]

I do not feel it is my place to post the reviewers names on the site without their permission. Their names can be found in the book,

Thats alittle odd. So there happy for their names to be released if i pay £5 for your book???. Releasing there names isn't showing any of the data contained but if its been "reviewed" but respected members in the field then it might make the difference between people purchasing or not purchasing.

[Cycles]

Thats alittle odd. So there happy for their names to be released if i pay £5 for your book???. Releasing there names isn't showing any of the data contained but if its been "reviewed" but respected members in the field then it might make the difference between people purchasing or not purchasing.

This is a world wide web site, a discussion forum. I do not think it is my place to post their names.

We are supposed to be discussing research here, not other people.

[Mondy]

If the eBook is written in layman's terms, as I think it was stated a few pages back, then you can expect my $9.50 / £5 from me to arrive in your account very soon.

Let's be clear here, GWO has produced something which may well be breakthrough material. Instead of hounding the guy, forget about the credit crunch, and pay the small price to find out exactly what you want to know

Edited July 16, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[0000]

Thats alittle odd. So there happy for their names to be released if i pay £5 for your book???. Releasing there names isn't showing any of the data contained but if its been "reviewed" but respected members in the field then it might make the difference between people purchasing or not purchasing.

The names of reviewers is irrelevant to me.Judging books by covers etc......I far prefer to do my own review by reading/watching something for myself than just taking someone's word for it.

[jethro]

Can't see what harm it would do to name the peers which reviewed it though; being able to check the credentials of those reviewers would add to the weight of the theory surely?

[Cycles]

The names of reviewers is irrelevant to me.Judging books by covers etc......I far prefer to do my own review by reading/watching something for myself than just taking someone's word for it.

And you are right "hannegan"

You need to see it so you can judge for yourself.

Any questions on the graph posted earlier?

[0000]

Can't see what harm it would do to name the peers which reviewed it though; being able to check the credentials of those reviewers would add to the weight of the theory surely?

That may well be true Jethro but if someone's not comfortable to do so (may not have permissions etc)then it's still not a big deal.

Re: the graph........if i'm reading it correctly there will now be a steep fall in temps?over how long?

Edited July 16, 2008 by hannegan

[Cycles]

Can't see what harm it would do to name the peers which reviewed it though; being able to check the credentials of those reviewers would add to the weight of the theory surely?

Jethro,

Reading and reviewing it on your own actually adds more weight. Some papers are reviewed for journals by individuals that know little about the new subject matter.

It is ok if someone else posts their names. I respect their privacy and I just do not think it is appropriate for me to do so, even knowing they will be posted by someone else within the next hour or so.

That may well be true Jethro but if someone's not comfortable to do so (may not have permissions etc)then it's still not a big deal.

Re: the graph........if i'm reading it correctly there will now be a steep fall in temps?over how long?

hannegan,

The posted graph only went up to about 1900. But yes, as this cycle ends there will be a phase 1 fall in temps and then a rapid deep phase 2 fall beginning around 2023. This fall will continue for about 20 to 30 years, plateau and then begin another global warming about 160 years from now.

[jethro]

Jethro,

Reading and reviewing it on your own actually adds more weight. Some papers are reviewed for journals by individuals that know little about the new subject matter.

It is ok if someone else posts their names. I respect their privacy and I just do not think it is appropriate for me to do so, even knowing they will be posted by someone else within the next hour or so.

I appreciate that David but as someone who has followed and taken part in this debate (about AGW in general) I tend to try to cover as many bases as possible when it comes to theories/ideas being dismissed out of hand. It's difficult enough getting anything accepted or even considered, when it doesn't agree with the consensus; providing reasons for dismissal, however trivial or irrelevant seems counter-productive.

Still haven't got around to buying the book I'm afraid, will do when I can be reasonably sure of having the time to sit and read it; incredibly busy at the moment.

[0000]

Jethro,

Reading and reviewing it on your own actually adds more weight. Some papers are reviewed for journals by individuals that know little about the new subject matter.

It is ok if someone else posts their names. I respect their privacy and I just do not think it is appropriate for me to do so, even knowing they will be posted by someone else within the next hour or so.

hannegan,

The posted graph only went up to about 1900. But yes, as this cycle ends there will be a phase 1 fall in temps and then a rapid deep phase 2 fall beginning around 2023. This fall will continue for about 20 to 30 years, plateau and then begin another global warming about 160 years from now.

Thanks GWO you're putting forward a very interesting and persuasive theory.

[Cycles]

I appreciate that David but as someone who has followed and taken part in this debate (about AGW in general) I tend to try to cover as many bases as possible when it comes to theories/ideas being dismissed out of hand. It's difficult enough getting anything accepted or even considered, when it doesn't agree with the consensus; providing reasons for dismissal, however trivial or irrelevant seems counter-productive.

Still haven't got around to buying the book I'm afraid, will do when I can be reasonably sure of having the time to sit and read it; incredibly busy at the moment.

Jethro,

Yes it is difficult getting accepted or considered when it does not agree with consensus, although I do believe my hypotheis would be accepted by 90 percent of the population. Little harder to convince those pursuing research on man's influence.

Most people are looking for a link for natural cycles as a cause...and my research is one of the first real links produced.

But again, it is not my place to post names.

[Chris Knight]

Thank you Jethro

I just posted a snip of a 1000 year PFM/reconstructed temperature graph. It shows the prior 2 global warming episodes and the beginning of the current one which is now ending.

The graph shows the PFM on top and the reconstructed temps and global warming events on the bottom.

I am willing to discuss this graph and some other data in the book, especially with those that have looked at the book and thus have "first hand" knowledge of the content.

I will also accept and answer general questions from those whom have not read the book.

I believe Jethro is suggesting it is difficult for me (David GWO) to discuss or argue a point if the responder has not seen a particular graph or table.

4 Reviewers in all. One reason the e-Book is smaller than a regular book is because the reviewers wanted my research to stand alone and speak for itself. So it is not flowery to fill pages. It easily could of been 300 pages or more, but it is instead short and to the point.

The reviewers are a cross section of meteorologists. One is a former reviewer for a leading climate journal. One is a meteorologist that is also involved with a planetarium. Another is a former operational and management meteorologist with the National Weather Service in the U.S., and the other is a media meteorologist who always hears both sides of AGW and NGW.

If my work had been sent to a journal for peer review, it is likely some of the reviewers would not know all that much about the subject involved. So I believe the cross section is good.

As it is already available on the web, I thought that a link to this image may be more what NWTV members might want to see:

There is an lengthy blog with David on the spanish wunder blog which may help answer some questions, and save David going over well traveled ground.

[Cycles]

As it is already available on the web, I thought that a link to this image may be more what NWTV members might want to see:

There is an lengthy blog with David on the spanish wunder blog which may help answer some questions, and save David going over well traveled ground.

Chris,

A very old blog. This particular graph was an overlay of preliminary data onto the Mann et al. It did not have actual plotted data.

The new snip of my graph is actual data plotted with actual reconstruction data...much more precise than is outdated work copy.

Therefore it is best to refer to the snip graph posted earlier today, it has the real data. There is no sense blogging on a very old graph that is not in the e-book.

I thank you for your cooperation

As it is already available on the web, I thought that a link to this image may be more what NWTV members might want to see:

There is an lengthy blog with David on the spanish wunder blog which may help answer some questions, and save David going over well traveled ground.

This is the snip graph with actual plotted data for both the reconstruction and the PFM

Edited July 16, 2008 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Snowball Earth!]

Fascinating stuff David as someone who is a bit of a laymen I really appreciate you taking time out to explain your theories to us all. Shout to the top David shout to the top!!

[Roger J Smith]

The graphs of PFM vs temperature are fairly impressive here although "100% correlation" is clearly an overstatement.

However, I am having trouble with the 231-year cycle related to the Moon. Can you state in plain English what leads to this figure? You've said it is a smoothed cycle that represents one-quarter of 925 years, however, in my study of the lunar orbit I am only aware of cycles of 18.6 years (declination) and 8.86 years (perigee), which combine to give a 186-year longer cycle of similar lunar positions relative to the earth. At any time close to 231 years there is no particular return period of the Moon's position relative to the earth.

Without some clear explanation of this, I have to assume you are talking about a derived cycle in the temperature series that is auto-correlating with the PFM. I can see the 18.6 year cycle as a second-order variable in your plot of PFM, but you are implying there is a cycle ten times larger than the declination cycle over 231 years. A skeptic would just say that you've derived a 231-year cycle and invented a lunar cycle that does not exist in nature.

A better candidate for a cycle of this length is Venus, which returns to similar conjunction positions over a long cycle of 243 years (as evidence, the transits of June 1761 and 1769, followed by 2004 and 2012). Note that Venus returns to similar conjunction dates every eight years, but in series that are 2.2 days earlier each time. What this means in practical terms is that each of the five conjunction series expected in an 8-year period slide back in the calendar to become the previous set in the next 243-year cycle. If retrograde Venus fields affect large-scale circulation patterns particularly in the winter months, similar orientations will be found only around 235, 243 and 251 years apart as best fits.

So as far as I'm concerned, this postulated 231-year lunar cycle, even if smoothed, represents nothing obvious in nature and is therefore not connected to the Moon at all.

[Cycles]

The graphs of PFM vs temperature are fairly impressive here although "100% correlation" is clearly an overstatement.

However, I am having trouble with the 231-year cycle related to the Moon. Can you state in plain English what leads to this figure? You've said it is a smoothed cycle that represents one-quarter of 925 years, however, in my study of the lunar orbit I am only aware of cycles of 18.6 years (declination) and 8.86 years (perigee), which combine to give a 186-year longer cycle of similar lunar positions relative to the earth. At any time close to 231 years there is no particular return period of the Moon's position relative to the earth.

Without some clear explanation of this, I have to assume you are talking about a derived cycle in the temperature series that is auto-correlating with the PFM. I can see the 18.6 year cycle as a second-order variable in your plot of PFM, but you are implying there is a cycle ten times larger than the declination cycle over 231 years. A skeptic would just say that you've derived a 231-year cycle and invented a lunar cycle that does not exist in nature.

A better candidate for a cycle of this length is Venus, which returns to similar conjunction positions over a long cycle of 243 years (as evidence, the transits of June 1761 and 1769, followed by 2004 and 2012). Note that Venus returns to similar conjunction dates every eight years, but in series that are 2.2 days earlier each time. What this means in practical terms is that each of the five conjunction series expected in an 8-year period slide back in the calendar to become the previous set in the next 243-year cycle. If retrograde Venus fields affect large-scale circulation patterns particularly in the winter months, similar orientations will be found only around 235, 243 and 251 years apart as best fits.

So as far as I'm concerned, this postulated 231-year lunar cycle, even if smoothed, represents nothing obvious in nature and is therefore not connected to the Moon at all.

Roger,

If the declination cycle of the moon is plotted, you do have the cycles you are talking about. My plots were done a little different by using the syzygy declination cycles and not just the pure declination cycle. This provides different harmonic sinusoidal wave pattern...the approximate 231 year cycle instead of the approximate 186 year cycle.

I also saw the 186 year cycle and it did not have the proper wave pattern. Once the syzygy declination cycle was derived, it was there.

As you know the approximate 18.6 year cycle has 5 cycles within it. Two larger cycles on either end with 3 smaller cycles between.

I plotted the data out to about 960 AD and then smoothed. It provided the 231 year cycle and 5 cycles over the course of about 925 years. Thus is was like the 18.6 year cycle, 5 cycles total with 2 larger cycles on either side. I call them goal posts.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi David,

My next questions about the graph: what exactly are the data points on the PFM? What is the unit of the PFM? How are those data points measured, recorded or derived?

Many thanks,

CB