An Assessment Of The Predictions Of The Commercial Company Global Weather Oscillations Inc And The Onset Of Global Cooling.

[Iceberg]

Taken from the below produced document.

Introduction

To make a few things clear from the start the concept of an overriding cycle (PFM) is enormous in the realms of climate science and weather prediction. So important that when somebody comes along and claims to have it all figured out and the evidence provided I think it should be noted and discussed sensibly.

The purpose of this document is to assess the validity of these incredible claims through the proving or not of predictions clearly, boldly made by the GWO organization. It should be said that it's very good of the GWO organization to make these predictions public. It should also be said that similar exercises have taken place to validate Piers Corbyn's work and the work of many and most people/organizations that claim to have a true understanding of the principle workings of climate variability.

It should also be noted that this document is not a scientific paper and does not met the standards of one.

It is not the purpose of this document to say that the entire theory of PFM is invalid or to look at the theory.

I have focused on the two immediate predictions rather than phase 2 of warming or the further ENSO prediction in 2-3 years time.

The two predictions that are covered are the ENSO prediction for December 2008 and the phase 1 cooling prediction for 2008-2009.

also the conclusion.

Conclusions dated 20/10/08

Test 1 ENSO prediction: There is currently no indication that the ENSO prediction will be met. It would require a record breaking switch to occur given even a moderate El Nino by December.

Test 2 Phase 1 global cooling: There has been a 0.1 cooling in both the GISS and HADCRU3 data sets compared to recent years. However the measured cooling does not support the prediction. MSU does support the prediction and would need to see a continuation of the average temperature seen so far this year for the prediction to be fulfilled.

It should be noted that all three temperature series have followed a warming trend so far this year though and that if this were to continue all would result in a failure of the predictions measured.

Both tests will need to be reviewed in 1 months time to see what if any changes have taken place.

An_assessment_of_the_predictions_of_the_commercial_company_Global_Weather_Oscillations_Inc_and_the_onset_of_global_cooling.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that we will find a collective sigh from many members of the wider Forum at the claims made by the individuals/companies referred to in the document.

Personally I feel we will never get much closer in predicting weather than the 90% surety the IPCC gave us as a measure of certainty that human activity is augmenting our climate changes.

One thing I would add is that ,all other things being equal, you can 'force' a system and predict the results. The whole of macro economics appears to run on this principle so why not climate. Sadly the "all other things being equal" part would require knowing what the heck the "all other things" were and I'm not sure we have that broad base of climate knowledge yet.

Stuffing the atmosphere full of a gas proven to retain heat can only lead the model in one direction....even with the normal background 'fluctuations' still in full force.

I personally think it a folly to know how much we have altered our atmosphere (and continue to do so apace) and not expect our dalliance to show effect.

[jethro]

Can you please clarify the author of the assessment; it's unclear whether this is your own personal assessment or someone else's.

I'm all for work being assessed and if you do make predictions, they should then be tested and either validated or dis-proved, but to be honest, I'm not sure why this is in a separate thread; shouldn't it be within the GWO thread?

[Phil UK]

.

[Iceberg]

It is my own assessment Jetho, I've tried to be as neutral as I can and I am happy to be told if I am not.

I wanted to keep it seperate to GWO's thread, as far as I am concerned that's his thread to discuss what he wants on it. I didn't want to hijack it and did want the assessment to be neutral.

I also don't want this to be a slagging off of his work or of the cooling notion in general, this thread it purely to discuss the potential accuracy of the claims coming from a commercial organisation.

His predictions are sufficently important I feel to be assessed in this way, regardless of how I feel about the theory per se.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Iceberg

[jethro]

It is my own assessment Jetho, I've tried to be as neutral as I can and I am happy to be told if I am not.

I wanted to keep it seperate to GWO's thread, as far as I am concerned that's his thread to discuss what he wants on it. I didn't want to hijack it and did want the assessment to be neutral.

I also don't want this to be a slagging off of his work or of the cooling notion in general, this thread it purely to discuss the potential accuracy of the claims coming from a commercial organisation.

His predictions are sufficently important I feel to be assessed in this way, regardless of how I feel about the theory per se.

Thanks for that Iceberg.

Fair enough on your reasons for wanting it separate, good luck with keeping it purely on topic...

Can't say that I can comment on the accuracy of his theory to be honest, I think Roger's better placed to do that but when it comes to predictions, I've got to say the El Nino looks incredibly unlikely - another La Nina is IMO a much more likely outcome.

[Iceberg]

Thanks for converting, I was just doing it but you were better and quicker than me !.

[johnholmes]

good idea Ice and I hope it can be kept without any name calling, good luck

[jethro]

Thanks for converting, I was just doing it but you were better and quicker than me !.

????? Was this for me?

If it was then I haven't converted. I'm interested in David's theory, but there again, I'm interested in all theories until they're proven to be false. I invited David onto here so that we could all discuss and learn more. When it comes down to it, I'm neither believer nor disbeliever in AGW - I'm in the no man's land in the middle.

Phase one cooling 2008-9; I think it's evens stevens on the likelihood of this happening. When it comes to assessing why, that's where the trouble starts. Say for arguments sake, globally we cool by 1c over the next twelve months, would this prove David to be right? How could it, unless everything else remains exactly the same and we can prove that part of the equation.

Again for arguments sake, we warm further or remain static for the next twelve months; does this disprove David's theory? Don't really see how it can to be honest. Again we have to know exactly all other factors involved in climate, how they act, interact and how much each contributes to either warming or cooling.

Given the nature of his theory and the idea that warming/cooling is caused by pressure belts moving North/Southwards a few degrees, wouldn't it make more sense to track the changes in these in order to verify the theory first? I can foresee another chicken and egg situation though, how would we verify that any changes in these belts were driven by David's Primary Forcing Mechanism?

The jet stream has moved Northwards since 1979, but no one knows for certain why; is it as a result of AGW or David's PFM? Could it actually be caused by the PDO? The timing coincides with the switch in the late 1970's to the positive phase, now we have switched again into the negative phase, will the jet stream move southwards again? If it does and we do cool, then is it PDO or PFM?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80416153558.htm

[Iceberg]

No Jethro the site admins converted the word doc to a PDF for ease of use. ! .

As to his theory being right or wrong if his predictions are right or wrong, I'll leave that for his thread as I think it will vary on an indervidual basis. I would say that he has talked about a 100% correlation though, so if his first few predictions don't correlate it will be interesting to hear why.

[jethro]

No Jethro the site admins converted the word doc to a PDF for ease of use. ! .

As to his theory being right or wrong if his predictions are right or wrong, I'll leave that for his thread as I think it will vary on an indervidual basis. I would say that he has talked about a 100% correlation though, so if his first few predictions don't correlate it will be interesting to hear why.

Aha! Numpty moment for me then...

Can't see how you can separate one from the other though. I do think the 100% correlation bit is erm, without wishing to be offensive, a tad daft. That alone, assumes everything else remains equal and climate just doesn't work that way.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for converting, I was just doing it but you were better and quicker than me !.

Whoever 'converted' it it has made the document far easier to digest and to appreciate how much effort has gone into it's production!!!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The cooling can only be fully assessed at the end of 2009 as David says it will take place over these two years and has mentioned that the predicted El NINO may disrupt the cooling temporarily. So good to follow but no decision until 31/12/2009.

Re El Nino, we must get an official record of what weak/moderate/strong is...that is the only way to be sure. Ice your assessment may not be far off but lets get official figures to prevent protestations.

What is the 30 year mean for 40-70? or 50 to 80? Do we know? I'll try and track it down

BFTP

[Roger J Smith]

I'll just repeat a few points that I've already made on the other thread in regard to this validation.

First, I believe that the PFM study is important and that it helps to provide an understanding of one important natural variation in atmospheric behaviour over the long term. I've already stated my concern that the PFM is not the only such external driver and that some of the longer-term variations ascribed to it may be better understood as Milankovitch-type solar radiation variations. But I think that the Moon is responsible for a significant part of the variations on decadal to millennial time scales in the post-glacial era for sure and probably throughout the glacial period given that perhaps the larger forcing for the glacial period is solar and not lunar.

Secondly, I was initially hesitant to endorse the El Nino forecast as people will know from that discussion, but I did say almost immediately that I didn't consider it a very significant test of the PFM theory. My research has indicated other external forcings not involving the Moon as potential causes of the El Nino, and if Iceberg wants to test out my alternative hypothesis, he could arrange a similar test for my prediction that we may see a weak El Nino at some point between now and June 2009 but a moderate or possibly strong El Nino in the time frame 2011-13. This is hardly a stunning forecast given the probabilities and I would not expect people to be amazed if it verified, statistically it seems more likely than not to do so.

As to phases of cooling, I think that we are already seeing some signs of a cooling trend in North America at least, with quite a widespread freeze at least on schedule if not somewhat ahead of recent years, and some very low temperature readings in the Canadian arctic islands in the past week or so. We'll have to wait for the winter to come and go, but once again, if Iceberg wants to test out predictions made from similar starting points, I am currently saying that North America will have the sort of winter that was seen in 1949-50, a very cold regime locked into central longitudes and extending to the west coast, and a very mild regime on the east coast, with the storm track from south central US northeast across the Great Lakes. This pattern would be likely to be progressive and shift east in late winter and early spring to place the negative anomalies further east in February and March.

[Cycles]

Nice Thread.

Just a couple small comments as all proceed with this thread...which is a good one.

When I state an El Nino forming by Christmas this does not specifically mean an El Nino will be recognized by the scientific community...there is a difference between "forming" and that being a "mature" El Nino. So we have plenty of time yet, some El Nino eventsror came on very rapidly and the the PFM cycle that will displace the tropical high is just beginning.

Secondly...as noted in this thread Phase 1 of global coolig begins as a transission to cooler temperatures as the polar jet stream shiffts more southward.

Regards

GWO

[Paul]

I'm sorry David but that is ridiculous, you have stated on several occasions that you expect a moderate to strong El Nino to form by Xmas, it's in black and white on this page on your own website:

http://www.globalweathercycles.com/pr_3.html

Mr. Dilley says the PFM gravitational cycle that controls the formation of an El Niño peaks approximately every 4 years, and it will again peak during this September into January. As this occurs, the tropical South Pacific Ocean and atmospheric winds will respond rapidly and cause the formation of a moderate to strong El Niño by Christmas. This will likely be the strongest El Niño in over 10 years, and cause disruptions in weather patterns during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere, and summer months in the Southern hemisphere.

[Iceberg]

The cooling can only be fully assessed at the end of 2009 as David says it will take place over these two years and has mentioned that the predicted El NINO may disrupt the cooling temporarily. So good to follow but no decision until 31/12/2009.

Re El Nino, we must get an official record of what weak/moderate/strong is...that is the only way to be sure. Ice your assessment may not be far off but lets get official figures to prevent protestations.

What is the 30 year mean for 40-70? or 50 to 80? Do we know? I'll try and track it down

BFTP

I agree upto a point BFTP what we can say my the end of 2008 is whether or not the cooling trend is evident for 2008. If 2008 shows temperatures increasing across all 3 temperature methods then it's very obvious that the prediction will be proven wrong. However some validity might be gained if temperature suddenly falls off a cliff in 2009.

Re official definitions they don't exist(at least lots of unofficial ones exist) for this reason a range is being given. 1998 was by almost all definitions strong, 2002 moderate and 2006 weak. I am quite happy for GWO to give it's definitions.

[Paul]

Lol Iceberg, he has above - a moderate to strong el nino doesn't have to be el nino at all apparently

[Iceberg]

Roger a spring phase shift to weak El nino seems quite likely IMO,I'll happily extend this to cover that.

I'll have a think about the US predictions it will mean developing a new subset of data to track.

Cheers

The predictions by GWO are so firm that alot of kudos will be come towards the theory if they are proven correct.

Lol Iceberg, he has above - a moderate to strong el nino doesn't have to be el nino at all apparently

um....Hopefully he can clarify.

[Cycles]

I'm sorry David but that is ridiculous, you have stated on several occasions that you expect a moderate to strong El Nino to form by Xmas, it's in black and white on this page on your own website:

http://www.globalweathercycles.com/pr_3.html

Formation means one has formed, but it does not mean it is mature (strongest point). As a low pressure system forms it is called a low pressure system, but it does not mean it has reached it's strongest intensity. This is only October, other El Nino events have formed rapidly without being expected.

[Paul]

Yes but you're suggesting that:

When I state an El Nino forming by Christmas this does not specifically mean an El Nino will be recognized by the scientific community

Which, unless you wish to go back on that comment means I can only take it that your covering yourself for the eventuality that no El Nino will even be in existence, let alone be moderate to strong by that point.

I've dug up your original press release on prweb, and usefully you've graphed it, although fairly small I'd say it's pretty clear that when writing the release you were expecting El Nino to peak before or just into the new year and be the strongest this century:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/07/prweb1158684.htm

Have you now changed your mind on this?

[Gray-Wolf]

I do recall a rapid (and unexpected) El-Nino/ La-Nina flip flop before the 2006 hurricane season which left the NOAA predictions of storm numbers in tatters (along with many of the disturbances that tried to form due to conditions 'not condusive' to 'cane formation).

The strongest El-Nino 'this century' would'nt need to be that strong seeing as we're only 8 years into it.......

Though still officially 'Neutral' conditions across the pacific the conditions are pretty mixed and, as quickly as the cold water upwelling squished the last Nino into neutral, I imagine the areas of subsurface warm wouldn't take much to impose 'nino conditions over just a matter of weeks.

As you know I believe we are in 'strange times' so nothing would surprise me!

[Iceberg]

GW in 2006 the biggest ENSO temperature change from one month to another was 0.3C, with NO subsequent month having another 0.3C change.

Strange times indeed and GWO's final ENSO prediction accuracy can only really be judged in Jan. We can however keep track of how it's progressing.

[johnholmes]

to clear up any ambiguity as what GWO did or did not say, quoting from the link given by Paul

pulled out of its normal location in October and November, setting the stage for a moderate to strong El Niño to form in December.

thus IF it has not become moderate to strong by 31 December then that part of the prediction can be said to be wrong, equally if it is at least moderate then GWO can feel his prediction for that part is on track?

Edited October 20, 2008 by johnholmes

[Roger J Smith]

Iceberg, I wouldn't discourage you from validating my winter forecast but it's going to be fairly obvious if it verifies, this is an amplified pattern I am expecting with large negative anomalies in the central parts of N America and large positives for at least Dec and Jan on the east coast. I'll report on it as we go along and save you the bother of a verification if the pattern is substantially different. If it's less clear-cut then "it is what it is" and sometimes a forecast is neither really good nor really bad (case in point, some forecasts made for the rather cold but dry winter of 2005-06 in the UK, just inconclusive perhaps).

As to the El Nino, surely people on here realize from the name "El Nino" and its connection to Christmas that the phenomenon has a habit of appearing rather suddenly in the last two or three months of the year, southern hemisphere spring into early summer. I found it really interesting to take a "google earth" trip up the west coast of South America from Chile to Ecuador. Try it out. The effects of the dominant cold (Humboldt) current are so extreme for climate that a desert landscape extends north almost to the equator, as compared to about 20 S in west Africa and 18 S in west Australia. The city of Lima, around 12 S, gets almost no rain at all, just some seasonal drizzle and the odd dying thundershower that drifts out from the Andes to the coast. But as you proceed north, it remains absolutely dry almost to 3 or 4 S before you start to see some vegetation showing up. Clearly the normal climate there is completely controlled by this cold current keeping the air masses stable and non-convective. When the El Nino strikes, this raises the coastal temperatures but it still isn't enough to do more than produce a few sporadic rainfalls.

My point here is that the El Nino is a sort of extreme variation in the global climate, and therefore would be harder to predict especially from first principles as opposed to some sort of monitoring of signals in the ocean which might be expected to have some effectiveness. That's why I really don't care if David's El Nino forecast verifies or not, because this is the last thing I would expect any global climate model to handle well, the real test is just in the nitty gritty of mid-latitude variations.

Another area that probably needs more discussion and more work is this basic concept of global temperature patterns, relationship to latitude of subtropical highs, etc. To some extent there has to be a basic correlation there, but as we all know from studying various regional climates, some regions are going to vary out of phase, or exhibit non-linear responses to the latitude of such features. For example, with European blocking highs, the temperature signal for the UK probably goes in reverse to the logic of the PFM theory in winter, from what I've seen, it may be more accurate in predicting upper air temperatures above the inversion layer. But this is a fine-tuned thing, clearly a weak subtropical high will be correlated with dynamic cold regimes, while a strong one in the right position could be part of a very mild regime; however, a strong high in the wrong place for this correlation will reverse the signal.

I've been looking extensively at the full moon in December temperature signals and regimes, and have come to the conclusion that yes, there is a "signal" of about 1-2 C degrees on a statistical basis, but reality divides into three groups of signals, a very mild signal in zonal flow, a very cold signal in proximate high pressure blocking, and a stormy signal in other mixed types of flow. The problem here is separating out the signal from the background in each type, because these are the background pattern signals as well. However, statistically there is some evidence that the full moon has a tidal influence on all flow patterns, in other words, it makes each type somewhat more pronounced. The problem for research is to establish what other factors are creating the pattern differences before the full moon signal gets its chance to work on the final result. That is where I am finding evidence of non-lunar effects. This applies equally to my winter forecast, the patterns I am predicting are not generated by lunar cycles but then the lunar variable interacts with the pattern to bring about some second-order variations.

I'll post some more about this December full moon analysis when I'm finished with it, but essentially the study (which covers the period from 1891 to the present to correlate with the period similarly studied for North America) eliminates any notion of a consistent signal from the full moon in at least two of the timing sectors being studied. Instead it becomes a question of identifying the pattern and the amplified signal of the full moon energy peak.