Global Weather Oscillations

[SnowBear]

Iceberg, why do we have neep and spring tides if the changes in the lunar gravitation has so little effect on the tides?

And why should someone have to pull apart another's work just to prove a theory? Thats confrontational and doesn't allow a theory to stand in its own merits plus wastes a lot of energy and time. I think David should be commended on his ethics of not pulling apart someone else's research. Perhaps if there was less confrontation in all this lark we would actually get somewhere with it?

[Cycles]

David

Iceberg wrote...I think you misunderstood some of my points.

he 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.

David's Reply....Why do you say CO2 should be at 500ppm today? During the 10k years leading up to the peak of the 116k cycles CO2 has rose 44 to 51 %, 48 percent during the current cycle.

Iceberg wrote....

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.

David's Reply.... it is available to the public.

Iceberg wrote....To your next point again you cannot provide evidence to support redefining the entire carbon cycle, refuting AGW,. Maybe you can, but very likely not. (particularly when you refuse to put any of this evidence into the public arena.

David's Reply... at least you said "maybe you can" even if you feel I cannot. And it is available to the public.

Iceberg wrote....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.?

David's Reply...Actually there is no such thing as normal climate or weather, the cycles are constantly changing.

Average lunar events (or mean values) allow the jet stream and high pressure systems to seek their mean latiutde placement.

Strong cycles displace jet streams, high pressure systems and tides from their mean values or locations.

Edited July 20, 2008 by GlobalWeatherOscillations

[Roger J Smith]

I'm looking forward to getting my copy of the research paper, and perhaps David is looking forward to opening my Pandora's box in return (a fair fraction of what is in my monograph is already on Net-weather in two threads over in the "advanced study" section, and I just want to issue my standard disclaimer that I did not put it in there and perhaps it should be in some new section for off-the-wall research ).

You have probably already seen my initial, off-the-cuff reactions to the theory but I will not be reading it to find fault in it, I just quite honestly had not spotted any sign of a 231-year (smoothed or otherwise) lunar cycle and had already theorized some causes for cycles of approximately that length. As I've told David, my work started from a different premise, an effort to understand day-to-day and month-to-month variations, and I spent very little time thinking about reconstructing past climates because I was operating from the premise that the Little Ice Age was a different climatic set-up from so many different factors that I was not expecting my model to work in that climate without adjustments. Since I've always theorized that circulation is partly dependent on the orientation of the magnetic field, my model is not fixed over time but wanders around on the surface with that changing magnetic field, so from my perspective, if everything external today lined up with everything external in 1845 with the much different NMP location, then the weather pattern today would be shifted in some predictable way from the weather pattern then. Now the solar input might not vary much, but all the other external factors would hit the ground in a different orientation to 1845. For example, let's take today's weather pattern over western Europe, if there were some very similar set-up in 1845 then I would expect it to be 2-3 degrees further southeast than it appears today. In the Great Lakes area, I might expect to find it four degrees further south-south-east. I think you'll have some idea of how these distortions would account for a lot of the observed long-term change without changing the dynamics of the model itself. But the problem with this is that one has to build in a certain amount of what might be termed auto-correlation. My model is most admittedly empirical rather than black-box theoretical in some ways.

Since I have only the vaguest idea where the NMP might have been located before about 1600 (in the 17th century it has been fairly reliably placed over Victoria Island) I would be more or less guessing to use my model to reconstruct daily weather or even monthly weather patterns in any detail, but this guesswork might be worth the effort if I had enough reliable information, because it might help to position the NMP by best-fit. As to the ice age climates, these must have been radically different from the present day, the North Atlantic drift or Gulf stream headed due east towards Portugal and the northern half of the North Atlantic was either frozen or near-freezing cold, much unlike today no matter what it feels like at Birkdale.

I have a hunch that after I've read David's work and mulled it over for the usual period, there might indeed be a moment of realization that he's uncovered some variable of significance and then I will no doubt be trying to incorporate that into a framework that I already have in place, but where the Moon has to make room for several other external drivers of the climate machine. Whether that will improve my own research model or not remains to be seen. I know the first big question I will be trying to answer as I read through the work, will be how it applies to the shorter time scales that I am more used to working in myself, or whether this is basically useful only on longer time scales (let's say 10 years might be the divide between short and long time scales in this kind of research).

Those be my thoughts as of today, I do plan several weeks of holiday soon and so if I disappear for any long interval, I may have many pages of discussion to read in mid-August before I can resume comment myself. This kind of research is more or less impossible to place before the mainstream at the present time, that much I already know, but even for us perhaps more flexible types on the margins, a proposition like this will require some time and study, so I would advise that September or October might be a realistic time frame for any considered feedback from me on this subject. Then what that will be worth, who can say?

[Cycles]

Thank you for your input Roger, and have a very nice vacation.

Actually you are correct about some of my research. It mainly has a focus on 4-year periods out. It is not intended for short term forecasts of a few weeks or 1 year. Cycles used in my research are mainly on the order of about 4.6 years, 9 years, 18.5 years, 72 years, 231 years, 925 years, 5000 years, 116k and 450k years.

[Chris Knight]

Thank you for your input Roger, and have a very nice vacation.

Actually you are correct about some of my research. It mainly has a focus on 4-year periods out. It is not intended for short term forecasts of a few weeks or 1 year. Cycles used in my research are mainly on the order of about 4.6 years, 9 years, 18.5 years, 72 years, 231 years, 925 years, 5000 years, 116k and 450k years.

From what you have said, David , here and elsewhere on the web, the strongest tidal forcings due to sun and moon are the "syzygy declination" events. I mentioned earlier in this thread that there is indeed a 231 year lunar cycle due to alignment of the axis of the earth's elliptical orbit with the moon's elliptical orbit. As simply as I can put it, the earth at perihelion, new moon at perigee puts all the maximum gravitational pull of sun and moon on one side of the earth, occurring almost exactly 231 years apart.

Here's the maths, quite simple really:

Very close to 231 anomalistic (perihelion-perihelion) years, is equivalent to 3062 anomalistic (perigee to perigee) months - the cycle between very closely aligning lunar perigee and earth's perihelion, and the next occurrence of the approximate same alignment, or 26 lunar apsidal cycles (the time taken for the elliptical lunar orbit to precess so that it points to the same points in space) later.

The way to ascertain whether these periods are divisible by subcycles is to look at their prime factors - 231

is divisible by 3, 7, and 11, and 3062 is divisible by 2, and a large prime, 1531, and 26 is 2 * 13.

So every half cycle of 115.5 years, or 1531 months, earth is at aphelion, the moon is at perigee, also a strong tidal combination.

The cycle can also be subdivided into 8 parts of 28.875 years:

0,0; 28.875,0.125; 57.75,0.25; 86.625,0.375; 115.5,0.5; 144.375,0.625; 173.25,0.75; 202.125,0.875; 231,1.0. Each segment repeats the bi-cyclicity of the two apsidal cycles. However, lunar nodal, nutation, length of day variations, and ellipticity periodicities follow different timescales, due to interaction with other gravitational influences in the solar system (and beyond?).

29 years, 55-60, ~90 years are all represented in climactic cycle time spectra, maybe some of the other periods are too. We talk about 30 year periods of warming and cooling within the 20th century, for example 1976-2005, 1945-1975.

It is apparent in the canon of solar eclipses, and I believe, in lunar eclipses too, which only occur when the moon is near to or crosses the plane of the ecliptic at syzygy, that there is a pattern that is similar, but not an exact repeat, around every 231 +/- 3 years. Clustering of eclipses, both solar and lunar tend to occur near perihelion and aphelion at some times, including the next few years, and in the times around 231 years ago.

There is a time spectral peak in some temperature reconstructions (Tree rings) of around 235 years.

links to some of the time spectral data (Prof L B Klyashtorin) can be found in this post

[bluecon]

Getting pretty complicated.

i am still trying to determine how the massive increases in CO2 emmoissions correspond to stable or lowering temperatures. Does this not make the AGW theory wrong?

[Cycles]

From what you have said, David , here and elsewhere on the web, the strongest tidal forcings due to sun and moon are the "syzygy declination" events. I mentioned earlier in this thread that there is indeed a 231 year lunar cycle due to alignment of the axis of the earth's elliptical orbit with the moon's elliptical orbit. As simply as I can put it, the earth at perihelion, new moon at perigee puts all the maximum gravitational pull of sun and moon on one side of the earth, occurring almost exactly 231 years apart.

Here's the maths, quite simple really:

Very close to 231 anomalistic (perihelion-perihelion) years, is equivalent to 3062 anomalistic (perigee to perigee) months - the cycle between very closely aligning lunar perigee and earth's perihelion, and the next occurrence of the approximate same alignment, or 26 lunar apsidal cycles (the time taken for the elliptical lunar orbit to precess so that it points to the same points in space) later.

The way to ascertain whether these periods are divisible by subcycles is to look at their prime factors - 231

is divisible by 3, 7, and 11, and 3062 is divisible by 2, and a large prime, 1531, and 26 is 2 * 13.

So every half cycle of 115.5 years, or 1531 months, earth is at aphelion, the moon is at perigee, also a strong tidal combination.

The cycle can also be subdivided into 8 parts of 28.875 years:

0,0; 28.875,0.125; 57.75,0.25; 86.625,0.375; 115.5,0.5; 144.375,0.625; 173.25,0.75; 202.125,0.875; 231,1.0. Each segment repeats the bi-cyclicity of the two apsidal cycles. However, lunar nodal, nutation, length of day variations, and ellipticity periodicities follow different timescales, due to interaction with other gravitational influences in the solar system (and beyond?).

29 years, 55-60, ~90 years are all represented in climactic cycle time spectra, maybe some of the other periods are too. We talk about 30 year periods of warming and cooling within the 20th century, for example 1976-2005, 1945-1975.

It is apparent in the canon of solar eclipses, and I believe, in lunar eclipses too, which only occur when the moon is near to or crosses the plane of the ecliptic at syzygy, that there is a pattern that is similar, but not an exact repeat, around every 231 +/- 3 years. Clustering of eclipses, both solar and lunar tend to occur near perihelion and aphelion at some times, including the next few years, and in the times around 231 years ago.

There is a time spectral peak in some temperature reconstructions (Tree rings) of around 235 years.

links to some of the time spectral data (Prof L B Klyashtorin) can be found in this post

Very nice summary Chris

and here is some other simple math for everyone...

A lunar year= 0.9 earth years

5 x 0.9= one 4.63 year cycle ( 4 cycles x 4.63 = 18.5 year master cycle)

50 x 4.63 = one 231 year cycle (4 cycles x 231 =925 year master cycle)

500 x 231 = one 116,000 year cycle ( 4 cycles x 116k = 460k year master cycle)

The cycles of 231, 925, 116k and 460k line up with global warming cycles

These are cycles I have found and explain within the book.

[Chris Knight]

Getting pretty complicated.

i am still trying to determine how the massive increases in CO2 emmoissions correspond to stable or lowering temperatures. Does this not make the AGW theory wrong?

Only if you once believed that "the science is settled". AGW may be part of the whole, maybe not as important as some folk would have us believe. Maybe there is nothing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, without technological retreat, which may be unavoidable due to reduced remaining energy resources.

[Cycles]

Only if you once believed that "the science is settled". AGW may be part of the whole, maybe not as important as some folk would have us believe. Maybe there is nothing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, without technological retreat, which may be unavoidable due to reduced remaining energy resources.

Actually as I stated earlier today, CO2 levels remain naturally high during the 116k mega cycles. Would expect near 385ppm for a few thousand years, then dropping off well after temperatures drop. As the PFM gravitational cycle decreases from the 116k peak the mean temperatures (the mean of 5 global warming cycles over a 1000 year period) begins dropping but the lag for CO2 decrease is up to a thousand years.

So the temperatures will fall naturally regardless of the CO2 levels, the natural cycles are the important driving mechanism, not the CO2.

[Chris Knight]

Actually as I stated earlier today, CO2 levels remain naturally high during the 116k mega cycles. Would expect near 385ppm for a few thousand years, then dropping off well after temperatures drop. As the PFM gravitational cycle decreases from the 116k peak the mean temperatures (the mean of 5 global warming cycles over a 1000 year period) begins dropping but the lag for CO2 decrease is up to a thousand years.

So the temperatures will fall naturally regardless of the CO2 levels, the natural cycles are the important driving mechanism, not the CO2.

From what you say above David, are you suggesting that CO₂ has peaked at current levels, and will plateau for 1000 years at around 385ppm? Sorry, but I find that difficult to believe.

Carbon dioxide measurements in town and rural locations can exceed 500ppm in the early hours of the morning on a diurnal basis, dropping to near the current global mean background each day as the air heats up and the (near surface) photosynthetic plants extract the CO₂ from the air. link

The background CO₂ levels are not doing anything but increase due to mixing with the lower atmosphere, with background levels found globally above 1000m and far out at sea, as well as on a daily basis on land. We know that ice core data for CO₂ has low precision cf. the age of the ice in which the bubbles of gas are found, being several hundred years different in age. We therefore cannot trust recent ice CO₂ data because diffusion with the current and recent past atmosphere "contaminates" metres of newer ice. Only the global and Mauna Loa measurements are anywhere near accurate, but even these are flawed, since they measure dry air, without recording the partial pressure of water vapour at the time of measurement. Much of the CO₂ measured by these methods has already been sequestered by water in the atmosphere, and is not comparable to measurements made 100years or more ago by less sophisticated methodologies.

A significant and growing amount of (Fossil) CO₂ is pumped into high levels of the troposphere, where the only natural sink is rain producing clouds, the source of which CO₂ is aviation. The great majority of land and sea based anthropogenic CO₂ from fossil fuel remains near the surface and is consumed on a daily basis by natural photosynthetic sinks, and by solution in water on land and at sea. The CO₂ levels in soil, fresh water, oceans, and in falling precipitation is by no means saturated, its partition into natural water is merely limited by the partial pressure of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Until fossil fuel use, and in particular oil-based aviation ceases, CO₂ background levels will continue to rise.

[jethro]

David, could I please draw your attention to this thread started earlier today:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1294631

In particular: "On the basis of C. Easton's coefficients of winter temperatures since 1235, he considers that this variation in circulation has a periodicity of about 220 years".

Do any of the dates in this article correspond to your research?

[Cycles]

David, could I please draw your attention to this thread started earlier today:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1294631

In particular: "On the basis of C. Easton's coefficients of winter temperatures since 1235, he considers that this variation in circulation has a periodicity of about 220 years".

Do any of the dates in this article correspond to your research?

Pretty good article from about 70 years ago. A 220 year periodocity is not far from the approximate 231 I talk about. And you should note that when I say 231, it does differ by plus or minus 20 years or so from 1 global warming cycle to the next. And each global warming cycle is composed of 2 major 8 or 9 year temperature spikes. He noted differing warming periods in his literature. He also talked about warmer sea water entering the arctic waters, and we see this in the Antarctic as portions are building up ice rapidly and some areas not because of a warmer current. Ocean of course has a lag behind air temperatures so it will take a little while for the ocean to catch up.

From what you say above David, are you suggesting that CO₂ has peaked at current levels, and will plateau for 1000 years at around 385ppm? Sorry, but I find that difficult to believe.

Carbon dioxide measurements in town and rural locations can exceed 500ppm in the early hours of the morning on a diurnal basis, dropping to near the current global mean background each day as the air heats up and the (near surface) photosynthetic plants extract the CO₂ from the air. link

The background CO₂ levels are not doing anything but increase due to mixing with the lower atmosphere, with background levels found globally above 1000m and far out at sea, as well as on a daily basis on land. We know that ice core data for CO₂ has low precision cf. the age of the ice in which the bubbles of gas are found, being several hundred years different in age. We therefore cannot trust recent ice CO₂ data because diffusion with the current and recent past atmosphere "contaminates" metres of newer ice. Only the global and Mauna Loa measurements are anywhere near accurate, but even these are flawed, since they measure dry air, without recording the partial pressure of water vapour at the time of measurement. Much of the CO₂ measured by these methods has already been sequestered by water in the atmosphere, and is not comparable to measurements made 100years or more ago by less sophisticated methodologies.

A significant and growing amount of (Fossil) CO₂ is pumped into high levels of the troposphere, where the only natural sink is rain producing clouds, the source of which CO₂ is aviation. The great majority of land and sea based anthropogenic CO₂ from fossil fuel remains near the surface and is consumed on a daily basis by natural photosynthetic sinks, and by solution in water on land and at sea. The CO₂ levels in soil, fresh water, oceans, and in falling precipitation is by no means saturated, its partition into natural water is merely limited by the partial pressure of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Until fossil fuel use, and in particular oil-based aviation ceases, CO₂ background levels will continue to rise.

As we enter global cooling we will see CO2 stabilizie due to increase land being covered by snow and ice, thus lowering the natural feedback. There could as you say be a slight increase for awhile...although it really has not been proven that CO2 is causing our warm temperatures.

Yes we are hitting the peak of the 116k mega global warming cycle and CO2 natural cycle, but this peak will last for a thousand years. This means we will see about 4 more global warming cycles within the peak. The next 3 warming cycles (every 230 years) will not be as warm as the current one. But the 4th one at the end of the cycles will likely be similar to the one today...this will occur in about 925 years.

Each warming cycle will see an increase in CO2, but sandwiched between will be cooling cycles that will lower CO2 levels a little...but not drastically because fossil fuel burning is adding some to it.

All in all the mean CO2 levels will remain high for a few thousand years (with cycles downward and upward during this time). But one we come off the peak of the PFm mega cycle, temperatures will fall no matter what.

[Cycles]

For those new to this thread, we have been talking about the release of an e-book and the press release below

All Press Releases for July 8, 2008 Subscribe to this News Feed <H1 class=h1>New Research Indicates Climate Similar to the 1800s Within the Next 15 Years: First Stage of Global Cooling Will Begin During 2008-2009</H1>New research findings released in the peer reviewed book "Global Warming -- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found," links seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles as the cause for all 2200 global warming events during the past half million years, including the earth's current warming cycle. It also links the cycles to a natural 50 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of all recurring 116,000 year mega global warming cycles. Meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations http://www.globalweathercycles.com, says the gravitational cycles act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere's high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions. As the current gravitational cycle declines, global temperatures will begin cooling during 2008-09 with dramatic global cooling by 2023. Global Warming- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found

Ocala, FL (PRWEB) July 8, 2008 - New findings released in the peer reviewed book "Global Warming -- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found", meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley utilizes nearly a half million years of data linking long term gravitational cycles of the moon as the cause for the present global warming, rises in carbon dioxide levels, and for 2200 global warming cycles during the past half million years.

Mr. Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations has found seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles ranging from the very warm 460,000 year cycle down to a 230 year recurring global warming cycle. All of the gravitational cycles coincide nearly 100 percent with 2200 global warming events during the past half million years. This includes the earth's current warming cycle which began around the year 1900, and the first stage of global cooling that will begin during 2008 and 2009.

The gravitational cycles are called the Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate (PFM), and act like a magnet by pulling the atmosphere's high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 4 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions, and thus causing long-term shifts in the location of atmospheric high pressure systems.

The shifts of nearly 3 degrees of latitude, or approximately 290 kilometers (180 miles) results in an overall change in the atmospheric circulation in such a manner to cause the climate to migrate northward during global warming cycles and allow some melting of high latitude snow and ice packs, and a rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels through a very complex natural feedback system.

This natural feedback allows carbon dioxide which is being stored and trapped in high latitude vegetation, soils, tundra and colder oceans for up to several hundred thousand years, to be released naturally back into the atmosphere during global warming events.

The natural climate shifts and associated natural rises in carbon dioxide occur approximately every 230 years as a recurring PFM gravitational cycle reaches its peak. Stronger global warmings occur with more powerful gravitational cycles every 920 years and 5000 years, with the greatest increase in global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels occurring during mega PFM gravitational cycles every 116,000 and 460,000 years.

Every 116,000 years, all but one of the seven different types of PFM gravitational cycles peak at the same time, with these simultaneous peaks causing a major shift in the earth's climate. These 116,000 year mega global warmings cycles have occurred four times during the past 360,000 years, all of which experienced a major rise in temperatures. The temperature rises were then followed by a natural rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of about 50 percent during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of the cycle. This same scenario is occurring during the current 116,000 year PFM global warming cycle which is now peaking and also experiencing a carbon dioxide increase near 50 percent.

Every 460,000 years all seven PFM gravitational cycles peak at the same time. This has happened only twice during the past half million years. The first occurrence was 460,000 years ago, with this event causing major long term global warming with portions of the Antarctic becoming nearly void of ice. The next cycle is now occurring 460,000 years later and is again associated with major melting of the ice packs in the Polar Regions.

Research by Mr. Dilley shows a near 100 percent correlation between the PFM gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles. Global warming cycles began right on time with each PFM cycle during the past half million years, as did the current warming which began 100 years ago, and it will end right on time as the current gravitational cycle begins its cyclical decline.

Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world's temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.

The release of the book "Global Warming- Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found" culminates 19 years of research clearly linking gravitational cycles as the cause for fluctuations within the earth's climate. The book is available as an electronic e-Book on the website http://www.globalweathercycles.com . The author David Dilley is a meteorologist and climate researcher with Global Weather Oscillations Inc. (GWO), former meteorologist with the National Weather Service, and co-host of the radio program "the Politically Incorrect Weather Guys" airing weekly on RadioEarNetwork.com, an internet streaming radio program.

[Cycles]

A mega 116,000 year natural global warming/carbon dioxide cycle has been discussed throughout this thread.

the 10,000 year period leading up to the Natural 116k cycle peak shows a rise in temperatures followed by a natural feedback rise in CO2.

As the mega 116k year cycles peaks (as it is now), CO2 levels naturally stay high for about 2k years, but the temperature begins lowering naturally after about 1k years. Thus as the temperatures decrease during the next 50,000 years the CO2 falls with a lag of nearly 1000 years from the temperature decreases.

So it is the temperature that rises first as the peak of the 116k cycle approaches followed by CO2 rises.

And, it is the temperature that falls first after the peak begins to diminish, followed by CO2 decreases.

Therefore, how is it that temperatures decrease following the 116,000 year cycles if CO2 causes temperatures to rise? Temperatures fell before CO2 following the peak of the last four 116k mega cycles.

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

GWO - I have been reading this thread avidly and have also visited the website, I have found this an absolutely fascinating read. Thankyou very much for this. I have to say that I am firm believer that what we have seen has been all part of a natural cycle.

Can you tell me, what has been the reaction of the 'mainstream' climate scientists to your theory so far?

[Cycles]

GWO - I have been reading this thread avidly and have also visited the website, I have found this an absolutely fascinating read. Thankyou very much for this. I have to say that I am firm believer that what we have seen has been all part of a natural cycle.

Can you tell me, what has been the reaction of the 'mainstream' climate scientists to your theory so far?

Shetland,

The mainstream scientists receiving grant money to study Man's burning of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming are of course very much against my research.

Those with open minds appear to be very open to discussing this, and even feeling I am on the right track.

From the meteorologists I have talked to, the general opinion is that about 80% of all meteorologist feel global warming is mostly Natural, and they applaud what I am doing.

As you may of seen, the discussion on this thread has slowed drastically during the past 36 hours. The slowing appears to have occured after I posted a portion of a graph from my book and some other facts, plus others backing me. So right now it appears the AGW people have left this thread and only the NGW (natural warming) people are remaining.

So all in all the reaction by the mainstream people has been to avoid my theory...and this is evident with the mainstream media sources.

[Roger J Smith]

:o

Here's a picture (based on my experiences) -- I've had a devil of a time.

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Shetland,

The mainstream scientists receiving grant money to study Man's burning of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming are of course very much against my research.

Those with open minds appear to be very open to discussing this, and even feeling I am on the right track.

From the meteorologists I have talked to, the general opinion is that about 80% of all meteorologist feel global warming is mostly Natural, and they applaud what I am doing.

As you may of seen, the discussion on this thread has slowed drastically during the past 36 hours. The slowing appears to have occured after I posted a portion of a graph from my book and some other facts, plus others backing me. So right now it appears the AGW people have left this thread and only the NGW (natural warming) people are remaining.

So all in all the reaction by the mainstream people has been to avoid my theory...and this is evident with the mainstream media sources.

Yes fully understand. Glad that somebody has decided to stick their head above the parapet and come out with some research which is not the "soup de jour"

[johnny1972]

Shetland,

The mainstream scientists receiving grant money to study Man's burning of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming are of course very much against my research.

Those with open minds appear to be very open to discussing this, and even feeling I am on the right track.

From the meteorologists I have talked to, the general opinion is that about 80% of all meteorologist feel global warming is mostly Natural, and they applaud what I am doing.

As you may of seen, the discussion on this thread has slowed drastically during the past 36 hours. The slowing appears to have occured after I posted a portion of a graph from my book and some other facts, plus others backing me. So right now it appears the AGW people have left this thread and only the NGW (natural warming) people are remaining.

So all in all the reaction by the mainstream people has been to avoid my theory...and this is evident with the mainstream media sources.

GWO

I have watched this thread on this site and others on other sites, contributing to some..... if you agree with the posters in relation to AGW your views are most welcome. However, disagree with their views and post evidence backing your views and the teddy goes out of the pram, posts become personal, as has clearly happened on hear, to which the Mods have had to remove posts and indeed suspend some for 30 days from posting on this topic. Unfortunately constructive dialogue and differing opinions/views aren't allowed with some. On a brighter note it is encouraging to see you post on this topic and offer an opportunity for people to ask you questions backing your answers with the opportunity to purchase your book which some appear to have difficulty paying for. I have always felt nature runs its course. Some have made a big issue out of the warming over the last 20 - 25 yrs. But i have always wondered how they can come to so many conclusions in relation to AGW when one of the biggest drivers of weather systems was only discovered 50 - 60yrs ago - "The Jet Stream." So if weather experts/scientists have only discovered this such a short time ago i fail to understand how they could have a full understanding of it and its effects on the climate. In my opinion to many questions remain unanswered in relation to the climate and therefore to many are too quick to jump n the AGW bandwagon and go with the flow. Time will tell who is right i just hope i am around to see who.

[Cycles]

There are many things we do not know about weather and the climate, and yes we have not known about certain drivers of climate for very long. So it is not surprising new technology surfaces now and then...although some feel it is not credible unless coming from the government agency or university. What ever happened to free enterprise...most inventions have been outside of the institutions of government agencies and/or universities.

[bluecon]

It's the way the game has been played. If you support AGW the money will flow to you.

If you stick to your principals and do the research that points against AGW you will receive no funds.

This is a black eye for science.

I have great respect for the scientists that have seen their careers diminished since they took the high path. History is full of great scientist that went against the consensus and were eventually proved right. It is awful hard to go against the mainstream when the easy way is to agree and sit back and collect the money. Shows character.

Men that stick to their principals against their own betterment for what they believe in is what made our society great. Very few like that left in the world.

[osmposm]

.....I have watched this thread on this site and others on other sites, contributing to some..... if you agree with the posters in relation to AGW your views are most welcome. However, disagree with their views and post evidence backing your views and the teddy goes out of the pram, posts become personal, as has clearly happened on hear, to which the Mods have had to remove posts and indeed suspend some for 30 days from posting on this topic. Unfortunately constructive dialogue and differing opinions/views aren't allowed with some.....

Perhaps you should ask the Mods the proportions of pro and anti-AGWers whose posts were removed (and/or suspended) before making accusations like that, Johnny. Intemperate remarks have always come from both sides of the argument on here, in my fairly long experience of the forum.

[osmposm]

It's the way the game has been played. If you support AGW the money will flow to you.

If you stick to your principals and do the research that points against AGW you will receive no funds.

This is a black eye for science.

I have great respect for the scientists that have seen their careers diminished since they took the high path. History is full of great scientist that went against the consensus and were eventually proved right. It is awful hard to go against the mainstream when the easy way is to agree and sit back and collect the money. Shows character.

Men that stick to their principals against their own betterment for what they believe in is what made our society great. Very few like that left in the world.

Bluecon, you - and all the others who believe that pro-AGW research is all corrupt and dishonest - might care to look at this link:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

You can read there the long history of research on the subject that eventually led to it being accepted by the majority of the scientific fraternity that there is at least a large component of recent warming that is due to man. Whether or not you agree with them - and the essay is clearly by a man who believes in it - the point I am making is that most of this research took place before AGW became the orthodoxy, and can hardly therefore have been motivated by the desire for funding.

I accept that any orthodoxy tends to become entrenched, and alternative voices can struggle to be heard: but have you never asked yourself why it became the orthodoxy in the first place? And if you have, and know the answer, please tell me. Any objective view of the normal way government and big business operate would suggest that they would fight tooth and nail to avoid it becoming part of the orthodoxy - as indeed happened in the US for a long time. In case you've forgotten, the acceptance by the Bush administration of the danger of our situation was only achieved after years and years of - presumably pretty convincing - argument.

Edited July 23, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

I have to admit I've stopped posting in here, quite simply because it's very difficult to argue with somebody who says that for their theory to be believed you have to re-write climate science.

It's a bit like a flat earther, you present all the evidence but they still come back and say that it's all hog wash, corrupt and a govt conspiracy.

I am all for free speech, if people want to spend £5 on it, convince themselves that it's all correct, that there are cycles within cycles, with cycles which if you go back more than 50 years could be place over any peak or trough(because with the fudge factor you cover virually every year anyway!).

The paranoid behaviour that all funding gets cutting, AGW theory rules, I am not being listened to (al la christie) is common amongst all areas of fringe science.

The 80% claim is just wrong, unless offcourse Mr GWO only goes to Skeptic conventions.

[laserguy]

I have to admit I've stopped posting in here, quite simply because it's very difficult to argue with somebody who says that for their theory to be believed you have to re-write climate science.

It's a bit like a flat earther, you present all the evidence but they still come back and say that it's all hog wash, corrupt and a govt conspiracy.

'All the evidence' is now confirming what has been blindingly obvious to a numpty nay-sayer like me,all along. Man-made CO2 has so far had zero,nil,nada,zilch effect on climate unless one can somehow prove (ha ha!) that it was the main driver (oh lordy) of the non-warming of recent years,let alone the even more recent cooling.

To the chagrin of some,I've been quiet for a while not due to a ban or suspension but because it's getting a little boring of late,and more than a little tedious as even more outlandish and quite clearly ridiculous claims emerge to prop up a dying cause. Watching AGW come off the rails is like being an observer of a slow-motion train wreck,and although it's wrong I can't help but watch drop-jawed as it unfolds. Whether GWO is right or wrong he deserves at least as much acclaim as Gore and Hansen who appear to be so far gone that nothing,but nothing can derail their grim determination to eradicate that most noble (unless you discount argon,helium,xenon etc ) gas,CO2.