Global Weather Oscillations

[Roo]

will you place the names of all the reviewers of the thousand or more AGW related papers.

The names on the review board of any peer reviewed journal are publically and freely available if you write to the journal in question. You do not have to pay a fee to find out.

Could you then, at least, tell us which journals have turned down your paper?

Oh Lordy, no, Roo - his 'ground-breaking' books were much too recent to draw me in - 90s, I think.

Awww... and there was me thinking you'd been having fun aligning the pyramids, Orion, Angkor Wat and next door's cat to prove a master race of ancient sailors!!!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I would have thought that the peers who reviewed Mr Dilley's work would have no objection to being named since, as Roo says, their names appear in print within the e-book itself (and I presume they get no financial recompense for their involvement in this peer-review process, so naming them here is not going to diddle them out of any money!).

The only reason I can think of for their not wishing to be named publicly is that they are reluctant to be associated with that which they have put their names to. If they agreed with, and accepted, the work then they should be proud to stand up and support it, one would think.

It would be nice if we could be given the name of just one of the reviewers - perhaps Mr Dilley could contact one of them and ask if that would be acceptable?

Many thanks

CB

[Cycles]

Naturally I have been interested in comparing this approach to my own research, and as of now, with the chance to get some clarification on a few points, my position would be as follows:

* The PFM as presented is problematic. There is no particular reason for a large amplitude index value based on lunar orbital positions with any periods other than 18.6 years and 8.86 years. Although these combine to give a 186-year cycle, that only modestly reinforces what amount to 10-20% variance peaks of significance in temperature.

* The postulated 231-year cycle, even if accepted as a statistical harmonic of a longer 925-year cycle, cannot be exclusively driven by lunar orbital variations. It may be the case that such a cycle exists in nature, but its cause must lie in some other area. In my own research I had identified more of a 240 to 250 year periodicity in long-term temperatures, and I had ascribed this to harmonics from about four sources, none of them lunar.

* The postulated longer-term cycles are misidentified consequences of the Milankovitch cycles of incoming solar radiation during which the Moon presumably provides the same second order forcing on the same 18.6 and 8.86 year cycles but is not an independent source of variability.

* El Nino and lunar orbital positions reveal a wide variety of cases and I cannot accept the postulated correlation on face value at all. For example, in the 1997-98 El Nino, the Moon was near declination minimum and about midway from southern to northern perigee. In the 1982-83 El Nino, the Moon was at average declination range and close to northern max perigee. In the 1925-26 El Nino event, it was fairly similar to 1982-83 as to declination, but near southern max perigee.

In my research I found that there were large solar system magnetic field sectors driving 80% of the variance leaving only about 20% for other sources including the Moon. I found that the El Nino was better predicted by disturbances in the J-field systems (Jupiter field sectors). Also, although the 7-year El Nino periodicity is quite approximate, there are no large harmonics in the lunar orbit at this interval. There is a 7.4 year periodicity of the asteroid Ceres interacting with the J-field system that correlates strongly with the El Nino. The next peak of that cycle comes around 2011-12. These are not the only interactions I found with significance, so it's a case of many slightly-differently timed harmonics of the J-field, which may explain why you tend to see strong El Ninos for a while, then weaker ones, as the harmonics separate.

Also in my research, the only significant signals I can associate with the Moon besides those of 18.6 and 8.86 years would be on the 27.32 day cycle and the slightly longer perigeean cycle of 27.55 days. These are fairly significant especially for the Toronto data but I have determined after three years of looking at UK weather in detail, that the signals are similar if perhaps of less amplitude, over western Europe. However, the research shows that the lunar signals are spatially incorporated into the atmosphere on an interference pattern grid so that some places show direct response and others indicate lagged response.

I remain open to a better explanation of the significance of the 231-year PFM primary cycle as postulated in this research but so far I have not been convinced by references to "syzygy declination" which I can only interpret as being the declination at full and new moon. This does not have any significantly different cycle from declination in general. Declination only changes marginally from case to case within the 18.6-year cycle due to second-order variations. These would not drive any longer term cycle.

I also find a major flaw in the theory would be its failure to incorporate larger demonstrated cycles that are clearly connected to planetary field sectors. For example, there is a large-amplitude (1.5 C deg) cycle equal to the synodic period of Mars in the Toronto temperature data (780 days). One-quarter of the 8.86-year lunar cycle, 2.215 years, would amount to 814 days and this would quickly decouple from the true signal here, however, there can be fairly long periods of overlap especially when Mars has two consecutive perihelion oppositions. In my own research, I also started out believing that the Moon exclusively drove weather variations, then found many signals that were clearly planetary and not lunar, so that my research focus shifted to a multi-factor model that is dominated by planetary factors.

The chance of my publishing this research in journals is slight due to complexity, and professional bias against external forcing mechanisms. I have estimated that my research approach might be accepted somewhere between 2700 AD and the end of time, with most estimates closer to the latter figure. As precise a summary as I can generate is available in the "advanced study" area of the learning forum here on Net-weather. I recommend anyone with ten years to spare might wish to go over there and get into it. This research did allow for two verifiable forecasts as you can find on the forum by checking back on the history of my posts particularly in December 2005 and March to June 2007. These include a reasonably accurate 30-day weather map for Dec 31, 2005, and a severe weather forecast for June 15, 2007.

Sorry to be so intrusive, but if the paradigm here is "look at this new theory about external forcing of the atmosphere" then compare and contrast, and draw your own conclusions. On the subject of the impartiality of the professional review process, this is a subject that brings me nothing but grief. In glacial geomorphology and continental drift, Agassiz and Wegener managed after most of a lifetime to break through their community's many taboos and barriers. Milankovitch had a long period of struggle before getting his ideas accepted, then rejected, then re-accepted. I don't expect to be anywhere near that fortunate, this is an even more stubborn and taboo-driven profession. As you all know, there is no shortage of individuals even outside the professional ranks here, who gladly cast the word "astrology" into the debate at the first opportunity then refuse any further thought process to develop.

I know that this research is significant. You would not find such a large temperature signal for planetary field sectors as I have found, and displayed right here on this forum, if there was not a real process at work over such a long period (160 years of data in the Toronto series, 350 years in the CET). These signals are real, and not particularly tiny either, if you combine ten or fifteen of them in a complex equation, you get a large chunk of variance explained. The theory I have developed is a lot more intellectually complex than this one, it does not all depend on accepting one driving cycle. That's why I use the 2700 to end of time range for acceptance.

As to the research that is being discussed in this thread, if some of you see significance in this 231-year cycle despite these objections, then I would suggest that you explore the viability of the theory in making predictions on any shorter time scales because if you accept the validity of a 231-year cycle it could be a thousand years before there is much indication of whether or not the theory is valid or invalid. Once again, I stress it is not the correlation with temperature reconstruction in the past that causes me any problems with this, it is the physical validity of the postulated PFM driving mechanism. But I suggest that a more careful examination may show a more complex and less spectacular correlation with a complex cycle of some length closer to 250 than 231 years. The current data may be adding on anomalous warmth from AGW so in global terms the peaks might be something like 980, 1230, 1480, 1730, 1980. But I would expect that each of those would be followed by a secondary peak at about 80 years later, so this postulated cooling trend could be a long time materializing, especially if AGW or sooty deposition are signal-degrading external factors.

Roger,

1. The approximate 231 year gravitational cycle is not just a pure plot of the lunar declination cycle.

2. The cycle is not a pure plot of the syzygy (earth-moon-sun) declination cycle.

3. You are correct that at times (from about 1992 into 2003) the low declination cycles occured with the El Nino events, and outside of this window the high declination cycles correlated.....

Both of these plots provide the wavelenght you are talking about, and they do not correlate with the reconstructed temperature cycles.

1. The plot I use involves using the strongest syzygy cycles. These only occur every 6 months and provide the 231 year cycle. This cycle incorporates the strongest lunar events and have the most profound affect on the oceans and atmosphere.

2. I studied the El Nino and my PFM declination cycles with the occurrences of the EL Nino from 1915 to present. In this study I found why at times the ENSO's occur with low declinations and other times high declinations. It is a predictable cycle... low versus high. I call my cycles the "High Latitude and Equatorial Cycles".

In summary, the 231 and 925 year cycles do exist if one uses the proper input data. I have looked at all 3 declinations plots, the pure plot of declinations, pure plot of syzygy declinations, and the plot of strong syzygy declinations and only this plot provided the correct harmonics.

[Cycles]

The names on the review board of any peer reviewed journal are publically and freely available if you write to the journal in question. You do not have to pay a fee to find out.

Could you then, at least, tell us which journals have turned down your paper?

Roo,

The submissions were for the El Nino. Journal of Climate and the Geophysical Union. One submission was earlier on in my research and I admit the paper needed much more work, but the journal was very rude when they merely said "NOT IN THIS JOURNAL".....which meant it was not mainstream thinking (burnt by sun spot papers in the mid 1990s) and there was no way it would even be thought about being published in their journal, even if it was cleaned up for publishing.

The other journal needed some re-writes to satisfy there questions. I submitted the re-writes but they kept adding a new question to satisfy. And one thing I did not like is they wanted me to write fairly strongly why research findings by others were incorrect and mine was much better. I did not believe I should tear other researchers down within my paper. I felt my research should of speak for itself. So, I discontinued my quest with this journal, it did not fit my ethics.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi Mr Dilley,

I wondered if you could tell us how you derived the data for the PFM - where do the figures come from, and what is the unit of the PFM?

Many thanks,

CB

[Cycles]

Hi Mr Dilley,

I wondered if you could tell us how you derived the data for the PFM - where do the figures come from, and what is the unit of the PFM?

Many thanks,

CB

The figures for the PFM were created by me. Other graphics regarding ice core samples etc were used in the book and created by other researchers. The graphics for the PFM were created by me, as were the tables concerning CO2 during the past 370,000 years.

An explaination of the derived data for the PFM was posted on page 11 of this forum.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The figures for the PFM were created by me. Other graphics regarding ice core samples etc were used in the book and created by other researchers. The graphics for the PFM were created by me, as were the tables concerning CO2 during the past 370,000 years.

An explaination of the derived data for the PFM was posted on page 11 of this forum.

So the PFM is, essentially, strong syzygy declinations?

CB

[Cycles]

So the PFM is, essentially, strong syzygy declinations?

CB

Captain,

Essentially that is what it is. The strong cycles employ gravitational tidal forces of approximately 45 percent greater than mean gravitational forces. This is what makes these cycles unique. Very strong and with the proper harmonics lining up with El Nino cycles and global warmng - cooling cycles.

The cycles I use are unique because they are not found in literature. I spent many years researching cycles, plotting hourly data going back well over 1000 years. Lots of work, and a lot of analyzing and correlating for proper cycles.

As far as I can tell, my research is unique.

[Cycles]

Just to add a bit of context to this, I know David's a long-time vocal AGW skeptic, so maybe a bit of balance.

Nitrous oxide is 200 times more powerful than CO2 this must be what we meant. Methane is around the 20-30 times mark. Water vapour less power than CO2.

The picture below shows very nicely why CO2 is an important greenhouse gas in that it blocks a percentage of a particular wavelength of energy from leaving the earth bouncing it back, the more CO2 there is the more it blocks. The fact that CO2 raises temperature is accepted by nearly ever scientist I know it's the amount it raises temperatures which is really under debate.

I don't want to take this of topic but thought a bit of balance was required.

And this is one of the real big problems with the AGW line....they do not have any proof that CO2 has had any significant affect on the last global warming cycle from 1900 to 2008. All they can actually show is that CO2 has risen during the period. And we the NGW can show that CO2 always rises during mega global warming cycles with temperatures rising first, followed by CO2. We the NGW have more proof than the AGW.

[Mondy]

And this is one of the real big problems with the AGW line....they do not have any proof that CO2 has had any significant affect on the last global warming cycle from 1900 to 2008. All they can actually show is that CO2 has risen during the period. And we the NGW can show that CO2 always rises during mega global warming cycles with temperatures rising first, followed by CO2. We the NGW have more proof than the AGW.

Indeed.

This is the big problem. Antarctica and The Sahara desert should have heated up faster than the rest of the world. Both areas have very little water vapor so the increase in CO2 should've had a bigger effect in these places if CO2 is supposedly the big, bad greenhouse molecule the alarmist claim it to be.

The average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 2.5% which is 25000 ppm, but in Antarctica the amount of water vapor is a measly 0.03% or 300ppm

Out of interest, add 280 ppm CO2 (pre-industrial time) and you get a total greenhouse gases of 25280 ppm for most of the world and 580 ppm for Antarctica

*CO2 increased about 100 ppm in industrial times.

25280ppm--------->>>25380ppm is only a 0.4% increase in greenhouse gases

580ppm----------->>> 680ppm is a 17% increase in greenhouse gases

That's 43x difference, so Antarctica (and the Sahara whose figures are similar) should have been heating up much faster, especially since the effects of greenhouse gases are logarithmic...

The climate models said otherwise: LINK And as we know both Antarctica and the Sahara have been cooling, not warming.

[Iceberg]

This is going way of topic but do you know where the in the atmosphere the greenhouse layer is ?

And this is one of the real big problems with the AGW line....they do not have any proof that CO2 has had any significant affect on the last global warming cycle from 1900 to 2008. All they can actually show is that CO2 has risen during the period. And we the NGW can show that CO2 always rises during mega global warming cycles with temperatures rising first, followed by CO2. We the NGW have more proof than the AGW.

Again more than slightly bias I take it you don't think that CO2 is responsible for any warming then. David from your posts and your theory, its quite obvious you don't have any respect or belief in existing climate science.

[Cycles]

Indeed.

This is the big problem. Antarctica and The Sahara desert should have heated up faster than the rest of the world. Both areas have very little water vapor so the increase in CO2 should've had a bigger effect in these places if CO2 is supposedly the big, bad greenhouse molecule the alarmist claim it to be.

The average concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is 2.5% which is 25000 ppm, but in Antarctica the amount of water vapor is a measly 0.03% or 300ppm

Out of interest, add 280 ppm CO2 (pre-industrial time) and you get a total greenhouse gases of 25280 ppm for most of the world and 580 ppm for Antarctica

*CO2 increased about 100 ppm in industrial times.

25280ppm--------->>>25380ppm is only a 0.4% increase in greenhouse gases

580ppm----------->>> 680ppm is a 17% increase in greenhouse gases

That's 43x difference, so Antarctica (and the Sahara whose figures are similar) should have been heating up much faster, especially since the effects of greenhouse gases are logarithmic...

The climate models said otherwise: LINK And as we know both Antarctica and the Sahara have been cooling, not warming.

Delta,

Ice core reconstruction of temperatures and CO2 actually show that all mega 116,000 year global warmings have CO2 levels rising naturally by 44 to 51% during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of the116,00 year cycle. The current 116k cycle is peaking and the rise has been 48%....within bounds of the prior 3 mega warming cycles.

This is going way of topic but do you know where the in the atmosphere the greenhouse layer is ?

Again more than slightly bias I take it you don't think that CO2 is responsible for any warming then. David from your posts and your theory, its quite obvious you don't have any respect or belief in existing climate science.

Iceberg

I have great respect for climate research, especially the Paleoclimatologists recreating past climates....CO2 and Temperature cycles. They have done an outstanding job and created an understanding that climate comes in cycles, and these cycles are quite regular.

Other research has gently lead us to a better understanding of the atmosphere and earth. However, some of the climate models do have problems. Yes we have some great computers, but the model output is only as good as the data entered into the model. This is not ljust my understanding and observance, other researchers have likewise noticed the problems with the models.

If we believed all the models, then why did the temperatures actually fall during the 1940s into the 1970s as carbon dioxide levels rose. The rising temperature curve from 1900 to 1940 propagated out as the models did should of had the earth literally baking right now...and it is not. Tempeatures have fallen worldwide during the past 12 months....right on with the research I have presented.

All in all I have great respect for all researchers, but not for an unproven theory AGW is presenting. There is a lot of science coming out disproving the CO2 connection as the cause for global warming. I agree CO2 can add to warming as the levels increase, but most of the CO2 levels are caused by the natural feedback of CO2.

Edited July 19, 2008 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Iceberg]

But GWO you don't seem to understand AGW theory it does not state year on year warming, if you look at the model predictions they dip and drive and take into account the natural cycles that we know about. AGW does NOT override all natural cycles. Nobody has ever said it does.

Again we come back to CO2. Do you want to answer my question yet ?. What level of CO2 do you think it natural and what level in PPM is due to man.?

[Cycles]

But GWO you don't seem to understand AGW theory it does not state year on year warming, if you look at the model predictions they dip and drive and take into account the natural cycles that we know about. AGW does NOT override all natural cycles. Nobody has ever said it does.

Again we come back to CO2. Do you want to answer my question yet ?. What level of CO2 do you think it natural and what level in PPM is due to man.?

If you look at all the past global warming cycles, of which Al Gore and the IPCC did not, I believe the current level of CO2 has been driven up by only about 5%. Usually 10,000 years leading up to the mega global warming and CO2 116k cycles, the CO2 levels are down near 180-190ppm. The current 116k cycle had CO2 ppm near 262 11,000 years ago, much higher than normal.

It was actually etched in stone by the creator of the universe and earth 11k years ago that CO2 levels would be near 390ppm today. It has risen only 48 percent, the other 3 cycles rose 44 to 51%.

Man was not burning fossil fuels or riding around in cars 10,000 years ago, 260k years ago, 330k years ago or even 425,000 years ago.....but the carbon dioxide levels rose the same percentage points as today's levels.

[Admiral_Bobski]

David from your posts and your theory, its quite obvious you don't have any respect or belief in existing climate science.

With all due respect, Iceberg, that's nonsense. Should we not look at, and formulate, alternative theories then? Was it disrespectful of Einstein to think that Newton was wrong? It is not disrespectful to think others wrong, no matter how smart or hard-working they are. If Mr Dilley can (or has) come up with something fully self-consistant that meets all the criteria for a robust scientific theory which stands up to scrutiny then it is obviously no less valid than the current theories (and possibly even more so).

I am not saying that I accept Mr Dilley's research (not yet, at least), but there really is nothing wrong or disrespectful about forming an alternative mechanism.

CB

[Chris Knight]

This is going way of topic but do you know where the in the atmosphere the greenhouse layer is ?

Great Question, Iceberg. Please start a new topic on this, as the answers are quite complex and varied. The "Greenhouse" has no specific "layer", and occurs at different intensities spatially and temporally.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Cycles]

But GWO you don't seem to understand AGW theory it does not state year on year warming, if you look at the model predictions they dip and drive and take into account the natural cycles that we know about. AGW does NOT override all natural cycles. Nobody has ever said it does.

If the AGW theory "does not state year on year warming" and it takes into account "natural cycles".....then why is it that the IPCC and AGW say that the earth is going to keep warming for the next 100 years when indeed we are going to have an end to this natural cycle? Seems like they are not taking into account the natural rythem of the earth.

Just looking at the natural rythem it is clear that cooling will take place the next 100 years. Is the IPCC and AGW saying that CO2 production is a 100% cause of global warming? Very strange in light that cyclical climate reconstructions show a cooling cycle is due.

How in the world did the climate become as warm as today during other global warming cycles....without man's help, and on a regular cycle?

There is absolutely no evidence presented to date by the AGW that accounts for today's warming....just a plot of CO2 and a theory. If we plotted the number of Radio and TV sets produced since 1913 or so (TVs since late 1940s), we would come up with the same correlation as CO2. So, we need to eliminate radio and TV to stop global warming

Edited July 19, 2008 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Paul]

More posts removed from here, already today a couple of members have been stopped from using this area for 30 days, I'd strongly advise everyone reads and abides by the code of conduct if they want to continue taking part in this and the other climate based discussions:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

[Roger J Smith]

I'm finding some middle ground on this complex question of AGW and natural cycles. As people know, I've estimated that one third of observed warming since 1980 could be due to greenhouse gases. For many years people have said, well we all believe there's a proportion, but yours seems a bit low. I've observed that the more sanctioned concept would be two-thirds to nine-tenths AGW and the small remainder natural. Perhaps as time goes on my estimate will appear more realistic to more people and as I've said several times, this is just the sort of balance that makes solid research into natural variability very important, because it will continue to drive the climate more than the AGW portion will.

Higher greenhouse gas levels in the early post-glacial optimum may have been partly connected to a more poleward tree line with the warmer climate that prevailed for a time. This warmer climate fits the Milankovitch cycles and is not in and of itself a disproof of the AGW theory. Whatever happened between the two most recent ice ages about 120,000 years ago (a warmer climate, less ice than today, higher sea levels) appears to be a possible natural outcome for us as well, which is one very large argument for skeptics. However, the Milankovitch forcing was a bit more favourable at one point in that inter-glacial and we may never get that much land ice melted in this inter-glacial. The AGW contribution could be a factor even if it is one-third of the observed warming.

The downturns in temperature in the 1940s and 1970s were probably related to variables in the solar system magnetic field more than lunar dynamics, in my view. And they were rather subtle downturns and regionally based, more or less the inverse of the subtle and regionally differentiated warmings of the 1990s. West coast of North America climates actually warmed while some others were cooling. I've grown used to the local weather guy saying that today's record high was in 1941 or 1942, apparently we were stuck under the mother of all ridges here for much of that period.

My basis for believing the AGW contribution is greater than zero (the absolute skeptic position, I suppose) is that I have observed a general upward trend in minimum temperatures in similar weather situations, and also that some of my modelling shows a progressive shortfall of a few tenths of a degree Celsius as we move from 1970 to 2000. I am still working on the complex idea of disentangling air mass modification from pattern shift, and then we have the steady northwest drift of the NMP to complicate the picture further. However, I have also stated on numerous occasions that I see a better case for sooty deposition in the arctic than greenhouse gas warming, and so my one-third estimate includes that process.

Just as an intellectual proposition on its own merits, the existence of predictable natural variability does not invalidate a theory like AGW -- the real question is, how does AGW actually play out within the natural variability to be expected from now to 2050, and to what extent will it hurt or help if we face a much colder regime or a natural warming trend?

Anyway, getting back to David's research, I've had an off-line conversation with him and agreed to compare notes and have a close look at what may overlap in our different approaches, and it can only help matters to have another researcher who is not taking the overly antagonistic approach of some alternative-theory workers which has in the past just been yet another hurdle in this never-ending steeplechase (if you think that 3,000 metre business at the Olympics is difficult, try going into this kind of research for a lifetime).

[Cycles]

I'm finding some middle ground on this complex question of AGW and natural cycles. As people know, I've estimated that one third of observed warming since 1980 could be due to greenhouse gases.

Anyway, getting back to David's research, I've had an off-line conversation with him and agreed to compare notes and have a close look at what may overlap in our different approaches, and it can only help matters to have another researcher who is not taking the overly antagonistic approach of some alternative-theory workers which has in the past just been yet another hurdle in this never-ending steeplechase (if you think that 3,000 metre business at the Olympics is difficult, try going into this kind of research for a lifetime).

My research shows that every 5th global warming cycle is the warmest...and this includes the current ending cycle and then around 1100AD. The three cycles between were much colder. I have tracked small and mega cycles going back nearly a half million years, each 5th cycle is the warmest (goal posts) with 3 cooler cycles between.

Each mega cycle occuring every 116k years shows dramatic increases in temperatures and carbon dioxide leading up to the crest of the cycles. The right hand goal post is the warmest, the one we are in now, and the left hand goal post is also the warmest (350k years ago). Had major melting at the Antarctic on the goal post cycles, much cooler during the 3 mega cycles in between.

We are now at the optimum of 7 different types of global warming cycles which allow temperatures to rise first and then carbon dioxide through the natural feedback system caused by warmer oceans, less snow cover, melting permafrost etc, all of these feed extensive amounts of CO2 back into the atmosphere after being stores for thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

Only twice in the past half million years has all 7 cycles peaked at the same time. Now and back 450k years ago. Both times also had extensive major melting at high latitudes. Man was not the cause 450k years ago, and very likely is not today.

[Roger J Smith]

So then it might be interesting to have your actual prediction for the period 2009 to 2100 and any statement of modification due to AGW from your perspective, so that if this discussion goes on for years and years, future readers will have something to validate.

With all due respect, I don't think anyone's reconstruction of ice age conditions has as much detail as you're implying to maintain a four-cycle rhythm back for that many thousands of years. When we get back beyond the Older Dryas readvance and Bolling interstadial events we are into a record which shows details from ice cores and pollen samples, etc, on the scale of thousands rather than hundreds of years. The dating uncertainty begins to become larger than this 231 year cycle at about 15,000 years before the present.

There was also quite a bit of talk in the literature I recently consulted about a supervolcanic outburst from Toba in Sumatra at about 71,000 kya (or 69,000 BC). This was said to have cooled off the earth significantly outside of the usual Milankovitch driven cycles. Something like this can always happen again and throw off any kind of modelling. There are also very important considerations about solar variation on longer cycles that could not be related to the Moon's orbit in any way.

The Milankovitch cycles in our immediate future do not point to continued warming, although the descent into the next glacial is indicated to be an uncertain and tentative thing compared to the last dramatic case 115,000 years ago. We have supposedly passed the optimum warming already (as of 8 to 10 thousand years ago) and with the lag for ice melt the climatic optimum was reached about 5,000 years ago. In the next several thousand years, one of three main Milankovitch cycles points to cooling, that being a reduction of obliquity (earth's orbital tilt) towards a minimum of 22 degrees. This results in polar regions receiving less insolation in hemispheric summer on both sides of the equator. The eccentricity cycle which is more complex is currently near its long-term minimum of about .01 and is not scheduled to increase for many thousands of years, so that argues for a flat temperature response. The precession cycle that alters the solar system magnetic field dynamics (not the primary idea of Milankovitch but my superimposed reasoning for its actual importance) also goes to a negative driving for northern hemisphere temperatures in 10,000 to 13,000 years, but will not be as large-amplitude as the last one in the LGM due to perihelion interactions with this cycle.

I am still studying my research findings for western Europe and may revise my own long-term predictions at some point, but I have in the past stated that my research model would imply an irregular variable trend from now to about 2030, without much movement up or down except for perhaps a few years here or there (for example if we are into a long sunspot minimum then a few colder years could be expected soon), then a gradual long-term if irregular cooling to about 2100. I think it is plausible that those natural trends would be modified to some extent so I would look for a modified validation being an irregular slight rise of 0.5 C followed by a decline back to values somewhat colder than 2001-10 as a baseline.

This would give somebody reading all this in 2100 something to compare to reality and make some informed judgement of whether I had some insight either from first principles or from the modified perspective of a partial contribution of greenhouse gases (which should, by the way, be on the decline after 2040 for both environmental and temperature-related reasons, but an important point being, a decline from what level? ).

[Iceberg]

A few points.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to 380 parts per million (ppm). Of this 100ppm rise you claim that only 5% of this is down to human output ?.

Quite where all the carbon we are putting in the atmosphere is going maybe can you tell us, or maybe there is a completely new carbon sink, becuase I have never seen any research that points out the mechanism that can uptake this amount of carbon. Maybe you want to re-invent the carbon cycle.

I am sure if you've dismissed the increase of CO2 due to man then you've examined the theory of 12C, 13C carbon ratio's and can answer why the differences occur.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

Secondly the little ice age is attributable to other drivers such as solar. Again to say that this is not true is to throw the realm of climate science that studies this(seperate to AGW) upside down. Again to do this you need evidence becuase they have alot more research(independent) than you do.

My comment about the lack of respect to climate science was made because to make you theory stick you have had to revinvent the known carbon cycle, reinvent what we know about climate drivers, The linkage between these cycles and the the wondering HP cells and effects on Rossby waves has no evidence to back it up.

You've said that you think climate journals, peer reviewing and money allocation is basically a dirty corrupt world.

When plotting your work against previous reconstructions(as i did) it was obvious that there was very little correlation, there was certainly lots of peaks and troughs that you theory didn't take into account, warming began before your theory suggested it should inmany circumstances. Hence why people talk about the fudge factor.

There is very little evidence to suggest that the PDO follows the cycles you claim.

If we are in such a huge zone of gravitation pull, why are tides not showing this.?

The reason this would not pass peer review is that you have not demostrated why accepted thinking is wrong, nor given the reasons or research as you why you are right.

There are many examples of this in the past maybe cold fusion which turned out to be a hoax(not that I am saying that you are). If you can get somebody like Roger who's independent but knowledgable about this area of science to reconstruct and replicate you science then it will be given alot more serious consideration.

[Cycles]

A few points.

Iceberg said.....Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to 380 parts per million (ppm). Of this 100ppm rise you claim that only 5% of this is down to human output ?.

Quite where all the carbon we are putting in the atmosphere is going maybe can you tell us, or maybe there is a completely new carbon sink, becuase I have never seen any research that points out the mechanism that can uptake this amount of carbon. Maybe you want to re-invent the carbon cycle.

Reply from David....As shown in the mega 116,000 global warming/carbon dioxide cycles, as temperatures warm CO2 rises. The 116,000 year cycles are made up of approximately 540 global warming cycles and 540 cooling cycles. CO2 rises with each warming cycle and lowers during cooling cycles. However, as the mega 116k cycle increases in amplitude toward peak warming, CO2 levels increase faster with each warming and falls less during the short cooling cycles. Then during the final 10k years leading up to the 116k peak (as we are doing now) the levels of both temperature and CO2 have a dramatic peak. Vegetation and oceans act as a great sink aborbing CO2, but not all, this is why CO2 rises. During warmest periods vegetation is more active and able to aborb more CO2. But, it does not aborb or sink all the CO2, this is why all the natural warming cycles have increases. During warming cycles much more CO2 is feedback into the atmosphere naturally but cold oceans warming and releasing some CO2 stored at the bottom for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. As snowpacks and ice retreats, the same feedback occurs here. As permafrost areas thaw, mega amounts of CO2 stored for possibly hundreds of thousands of years is fed back into the atmosphere.

Iceberg said.....the little ice age is attributable to other drivers such as solar. Again to say that this is not true is to throw the realm of climate science that studies this(seperate to AGW) upside down. Again to do this you need evidence becuase they have alot more research(independent) than you do.

David Replied....Yes my research will likely turn the realm of some climate science upside down...and also AGW. Many have attributed the little ice age to drivers such as the solar influence. However my goal post hypothesis for each 5th PFM cycle being the warmest and the 3 smaller cycles between the goal posts being the coldes fit. It fits the 925 year cycles, and the 460,000 year cycles. Solar influence is not enough to cause the changes. Can a change of the earth axis by 1 degree latitude cause these changes...a little. Can a shifit in the earth's atmospheric high pressure systems and jet streams by 3 to 7 degrees of latitude cause a major change in climate...yes, this shift caused by the PFM would have a much more profound affect than the slight solar shift.

Iceberg says....My comment about the lack of respect to climate science was made because to make you theory stick you have had to revinvent the known carbon cycle, reinvent what we know about climate drivers, The linkage between these cycles and the the wondering HP cells and effects on Rossby waves has no evidence to back it up.

David Replied....If you read my book you will see that I provide evidence to back up what I say. I have so to speak re-evented the known carbon cycle and the drivers. And I do have evidence showing possible effects that could include Rossby waves. If you look at the 20-year ocean temperatures driven by the PFM, you can see the PFM must have a significant effect on the oceans and thus the atmospheree in return.

Iceberg said....When plotting your work against previous reconstructions(as i did) it was obvious that there was very little correlation, there was certainly lots of peaks and troughs that you theory didn't take into account, warming began before your theory suggested it should inmany circumstances. Hence why people talk about the fudge factor.

David Replied....The graph I provided on this forum showed 2 PFM peaks and 2 global warmings, all aligned perfectly. It showed 2 PFM troughs and 2 coolings, both aligned perfectly. So, I do not know what graph you are looking at.

Iceberg Said....If we are in such a huge zone of gravitation pull, why are tides not showing this.?

David Replied....Because there are many gravitational cycles within cycles. The tides are effected on a 2 per day high tide. The cycles greatly effect these tides. You can have coastal flooding due to these cycles even without assoicated atmospheric storms.

Iceberg said....The reason this would not pass peer review is that you have not demostrated why accepted thinking is wrong, nor given the reasons or research as you why you are right.

David Replied....I am letting my research speak for itself, not to tear other theories apart in the book. And the likely reason it would not pass peer review in some journals is because it is out of the box thinking. Here in the United States the government has made the AGW the accepted theory for warming. Thus the government does not provide grants to universities to study a natural cause. The head of NASA was sanctiioned and not allowed to talk about possible natural cycles. The list goes on and on.

Iceberg said....There are many examples of this in the past maybe cold fusion which turned out to be a hoax(not that I am saying that you are). If you can get somebody like Roger who's independent but knowledgable about this area of science to reconstruct and replicate you science then it will be given alot more serious consideration.

David Replied....It sounds like the AGW people have a closed mind...how can anything else possibly have an influence!

Roger and I are talking in the background and will be exchanging ideas and data. He is very knowledgable, although as of yet not with my new cycles. I am also talking to others in the background about some items.

Question to you Iceberg....have you looked at my research?

[Iceberg]

David

I think you misunderstood some of my points.

"Reply from David....As shown in the mega 116,000 global warming/carbon dioxide cycles, as temperatures warm CO2 rises. The 116,000 year cycles are made up of approximately 540 global warming cycles and 540 cooling cycles. CO2 rises with each warming cycle and lowers during cooling cycles. However, as the mega 116k cycle increases in amplitude toward peak warming, CO2 levels increase faster with each warming and falls less during the short cooling cycles. Then during the final 10k years leading up to the 116k peak (as we are doing now) the levels of both temperature and CO2 have a dramatic peak. Vegetation and oceans act as a great sink aborbing CO2, but not all, this is why CO2 rises. During warmest periods vegetation is more active and able to aborb more CO2. But, it does not aborb or sink all the CO2, this is why all the natural warming cycles have increases. During warming cycles much more CO2 is feedback into the atmosphere naturally but cold oceans warming and releasing some CO2 stored at the bottom for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. As snowpacks and ice retreats, the same feedback occurs here. As permafrost areas thaw, mega amounts of CO2 stored for possibly hundreds of thousands of years is fed back into the atmosphere."

The issue here is that man made CO2 should have upped PPM to 500, the warming that has gone along side this has taken up around 100ppm of these, mainly the oceans that have been warmer. However if you saying that only 5% of the increase from 280 to 380 is man induced then much more CO2 would have to have been taken up. There is no evidence for this and you have provided no evidence for this.

As to the solar influence having no effect, Solar fits the LIA better than your thoery however you might be right but again you have provided no evidence to support it other than a cycle which nobody else can see and which nobody else has independently varified.

To your next point again you cannot provide evidence to support redefining the entire carbon cycle, refuting AGW, support your new cycle and everything else in 20 pages of work. There hundred if not thousands of scientists that have spent there lives producing evidence all over the world and you can in valid terms disprove all this in 20 pages. Maybe you can, but very likely not. (particularly when you refuse to put any of this evidence into the public arena.

next point

I am looking at the graphs I produced whilst at work I will try and post them up on Monday, but I am on holiday after that time.

Your missing my point if gravitation pulls can effect the position of the Jet stream and the entire climate of the planet then it would effect tides, if the gravitation pull of the twice daily tides so overwelms the other gravitation effect then why does it have such an impact. Also why does the normal cycles of the moon have such little effect on the climate.?

With all due respect with your next point you show that you don't understand the peer review process.

I don't have a closed mind david far from it. But if one person says to you that the sky is falling down, it's wise to get some confirmation.

Yes I have look at you research and the research in interesting, but it's not yet a theory and I have seen nothing that suggests that you are right and the rest of the world wrong.

[Cycles]

So then it might be interesting to have your actual prediction for the period 2009 to 2100 and any statement of modification due to AGW from your perspective, so that if this discussion goes on for years and years, future readers will have something to validate.

The Milankovitch cycles in our immediate future do not point to continued warming, although the descent into the next glacial is indicated to be an uncertain and tentative thing compared to the last dramatic case 115,000 years ago. We have supposedly passed the optimum warming already (as of 8 to 10 thousand years ago) and with the lag for ice melt the climatic optimum was reached about 5,000 years ago. In the next several thousand years, one of three main Milankovitch cycles points to cooling, that being a reduction of obliquity (earth's orbital tilt) towards a minimum of 22 degrees. This results in polar regions receiving less insolation in hemispheric summer on both sides of the equator. I am still studying my research findings for western Europe and may revise my own long-term predictions at some point, but I have in the past stated that my research model would imply an irregular variable trend from now to about 2030, without much movement up or down except for perhaps a few years here or there (for example if we are into a long sunspot minimum then a few colder years could be expected soon), then a gradual long-term if irregular cooling to about 2100.

The milankovitch cycle point to a reduction of obliquity (earth's orbital tile) twoard a minium of 22 degrees.

Roger...

My prediction for 2008 to 2100 calls for cooling from 2008 into about 2017 (temperatures worldwide similar to those in the 1940s into the 1980s). Then a mini-warming with temperatures almost as warm as 2002-2006) for about 3-4 years. This will be followed in 2023 by extremely rapid cooling with temperatures similar to those recorded in the 1800s. Very extreme cold will be experienced within 15-25 years following 2023, resulting in agricultrural failures. Temperatures will then level off and even climb a little, but the next global warming event will not have its initial beginning until about 2140.

The Milankovitch cycles does point to a minimum earth orbital tilt of 22 degrees (normally 23 degrees) in several thousand years, and this lines up with the downward turn of the mega 116,000 PFM cycle. We are now just reaching the peak of the PFM cycle and will remain at the peak for about 1000 years, then beginning declining. The major decline in the PFM may coincide with the Milankovitch cycle, if they are both declining in about 3 thousand years.

As earth came off the 4 prior 116k PFM cycles, temperatures declined fairly fast with CO2 decline lagging quite a bit behind the PFM (lunar gravitational declination cycle). This actually means that the PFM cycle is the main driving force of the temperature cycles, with the temperatures declining rapidly even with high CO2 readings. Thus, it is likely, very likely, that CO2 is only a by-product of global warming. If CO2 caused rising global temperatures, then you could not of hdad an approximate 60,000 drop in temperatures as seen in the prior 4 cycles. But the temperatures did fall rapadily and this indicates that CO2 is a minor factor at best.