Jump to content

Global Weather Oscillations


jethro

Recommended Posts

I hope no one minds but as Mr. Dilley has kindly joined us for this debate, I thought it might be better to have a separate thread.

Here is a link to his theory: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2008/7/prweb1081014.htm

I'll cut and paste the posts so far - hope it works.....

GlobalWeatherOsc...

GlobalWeatherOscillations

This is Mr. Dilley. Thank you for inviting me to your forum.

I will briefly answer 2 questions posted here.

First....The e-Book was peer reviewed by 4 professional meteorologists, re-written many times to include their input. Tried to publish the e-Book much like a scientific journal would do. One reviewer is a past reviewer for the Journal of Climate.

Second....All the information backing up my claims are in the e-Book, and yes the correlations are near 100 percent, this is what makes it the "Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate" PFM

The PFM drives many climate features, including tracks of hurricanes, historical weather events, and the El Nino.

I will try to answer as many questions as I can, speculative questions need to be addressed with other forum members that have read the book.

Yes the book is forsale. I did not receive any outside funding for my research, so it is totally unbiased. Absolutely no funding from energy groups, envrionmental groups or government funding.

SnowBear

Good day Mr. Dilley and may I welcome you to the NetWeather Forum!

May I thank you from all of us for taking time to visit us here!

Mr Sleet

Hi David, thanks for visiting.

I come from a position of scepticism that CO2 is the main driver of climate. As you suggest, global warming causes release of C02 due to factors such as lower solubility in oceans etc. so it's difficult to know which is driving which in todays situation. I think measurements show that the majority of the increase in CO2 at the moment is industrial in origin due to the higher C14 isotope level. (I see you have a chapter on natural and industrial CO2 in your book.) Do you think that this isotope question is a problem for your theory ?

thanks

Mark

GlobalWeatherOsc...

GlobalWeatherOscillations

Thank you for you welcome Mark.

As described and shown in 4 tables a few graphs in the e-Book, carbon dioxide levels rise naturally during the long and short term cycles. It was actually etched in stone nearly 10,000 years ago that this cycle would be the warmest in over 400,000 years, and have the highest carbon dioxide levels.

Man was not burning that much fossil fuels 10,000 years ago, and 450,000 years ago.

millennia

Welcome from me as well Mr Dilley - good of you to make the personal effort to log on. Your answer did not cover the C14 issue that was raised and while I'm prepared to accept natural variability as some of the answer for CO2 increase in the last 30 years I'm also quite happy to accept that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is still doing the rounds in the atmosphere, and will do for decades to come. I don't see your theory accounting for the unusual short term rise in CO2 but over a longer cycle as a reaction to temperatures it makes perfect sense. Assuming CO2 lags temperature I would therefore expect we haven't seen the CO2 peak yet, global cooling or not.

Don't know what certain people's objection to buying the book is, what's 10 bucks in the quest for information? Good old Al charged $30 for his masterpiece in this country!

jethro

Hello David and welcome to the forum, thanks for accepting the invite.

I don't have many questions to ask, I'd rather sit back and learn first but I am wondering if the switch to cooler temperatures will be a gradual decline or whether we can expect a more pronounced, obvious change of regime?

VillagePlank

Hi David,

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

We know the quantity of 'man-made' CO2 in the atmopshere through isotope analysis, and we know that that is increasing. Indeed, it's the very measure of our contribution to CO2 levels. Therefore, - what is the proportion between the two, if you like, and, given the conclusion that it's all natural does that mean that manmade CO2 concentrations, hence effect, are therefore neglible?

Chris Knight

I like a new idea as much as the next fellow, but don't we deserve a new topic for Mr David Dilley's theories?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I see we have 2 threads going here. I replied to comments on the "30 years of Global Cooling" blog.

I will now begin on this one.

And....I thank all of you for your warm welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see we have 2 threads going here. I replied to comments on the "30 years of Global Cooling" blog.

I will now begin on this one.

And....I thank all of you for your warm welcome

Hi David,

Hurricane Bertha is now apparently stalled at about 31 N. Was this predictable? Can you let us know how the anticyclone will behave as it is apparently blocked by the Azores high?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi David,

Hurricane Bertha is now apparently stalled at about 31 N. Was this predictable? Can you let us know how the anticyclone will behave as it is apparently blocked by the Azores high?

Thanks

Chris,

Bertha is blocked by a weak Azores high. Therefore the hurricane will move very slowly as it begins turning more northward in 24hours and then northeast. During the next 3 days it will only move 300miles, a relatively short distance. It will be over cooler waters and therefore weaken during the period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, welcome, and thank you for taking time to answer our questions

re this comment from you in answer to a question above

All the information backing up my claims are in the e-Book, and yes the correlations are near 100 percent, this is what makes it the "Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate" PFM

you mention the correlations are near 100%, when you say are near 100%, how near? Also if they are as you say, then over what time scale do you suggest that they correlate, 1 year, 1 decade 1 century or what?

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
hi, welcome, and thank you for taking time to answer our questions

re this comment from you in answer to a question above

All the information backing up my claims are in the e-Book, and yes the correlations are near 100 percent, this is what makes it the "Primary Forcing Mechanism for Climate" PFM

you mention the correlations are near 100%, when you say are near 100%, how near? Also if they are as you say, then over what time scale do you suggest that they correlate, 1 year, 1 decade 1 century or what?

many thanks

John

When I say near 100% I am actually saying 100%. All cases verified over a 450,000 year period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
okay, fine,

excuse my ignorance but just what correlates with what and over what time scale? So if the temperature shows a fall how near to that time scale is the magnetic or whatever variation showing similar?

are you able to show us a graph of a particular rise or fall, say the onset of the mini ice age in, what was it, the mid 1500-1600's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I see that we're over on this thread now, so please allow me to repost my question from the other thread over here! :)

Thanks for getting back to me

If I may just quickly go over this again - you're PFM is essentially fluctuating lunar gravitational influence. You are saying that global warming cycles over the past several thousand years are 100% correlated with these lunar fluctuations.

So are you saying that, for example, the effect of varying solar output on our climate is non-existant? If the moon is entirely responsible for warming and cooling cycles then the Sun must have no influence.

And yet solar output correlates with warming and cooling cycles quite nicely (at least up until the mid-80s), So is this apparent correlation simply a red herring?

Cheers,

CB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David!

Though I have a great interest in the earths EMF and the force lines of the magnetic field (for their wider impacts upon both our planet and ourselves) I feel I/we need to know a little more of how they access global weather patterns and impact upon climate (for the poor 'unwaged' who have no access to your works).

I am a proponent of human induced climate change but have never discounted the impacts (both cooling and warming) of our more 'natural' cycles.

In today's 'climate oscillations' I feel it all the more important that we know as many of the 'surprises' that the planet may throw at us (especially with us sailing so close to so many 'tipping points).

I hope you are able to oblige :) ,

Ian Ballantine-Gray.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I see that we're over on this thread now, so please allow me to repost my question from the other thread over here! :)

CB

I also have seen some graphs on solar intensities correlating with global warming. However, they do not go back very far with their correlations.

It is so logical that gravitational cycles would affect long-term cycles. My book also shows the cycles correlating with every El Nino and the rises in ocean temperatures in the Tropical South Pacific.

Am I saying no to solar cycles. Not entirely. Sunspots I say no. Solar intensity likely has a correlation, but not to amplitude and timing of the 5 global warming events during the past 1k yeas, and not to the 5 mega cycles during the past half million years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi David!

Though I have a great interest in the earths EMF and the force lines of the magnetic field (for their wider impacts upon both our planet and ourselves) I feel I/we need to know a little more of how they access global weather patterns and impact upon climate (for the poor 'unwaged' who have no access to your works).

I am a proponent of human induced climate change but have never discounted the impacts (both cooling and warming) of our more 'natural' cycles.

In today's 'climate oscillations' I feel it all the more important that we know as many of the 'surprises' that the planet may throw at us (especially with us sailing so close to so many 'tipping points).

I hope you are able to oblige :) ,

Ian Ballantine-Gray.

Gray

The gravitational forces pull semi-pemanent high pressure systems northward or south by as much as 3 to 4 degrees of latitude. The highs are displacement monthly in this range with short gravitational cycles, and for longer periods of time when the cycles become longer, such as every 230 years, or with the longer cycles.

This tends to migrate the climate northward or southward. Over long cycles with climate may migrate northward with the cycles by 3 to 4 degrees of latitude or about 180 miles (280 km? conversion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
CB

I also have seen some graphs on solar intensities correlating with global warming. However, they do not go back very far with their correlations.

It is so logical that gravitational cycles would affect long-term cycles. My book also shows the cycles correlating with every El Nino and the rises in ocean temperatures in the Tropical South Pacific.

Am I saying no to solar cycles. Not entirely. Sunspots I say no. Solar intensity likely has a correlation, but not to amplitude and timing of the 5 global warming events during the past 1k yeas, and not to the 5 mega cycles during the past half million years.

So do you think the recent drop in solar activity (not just sunspots) recently plays into the cycles you are citing? And will it contribute to the rather rapid drop in global temperatures you predict?

Link to post
Share on other sites
CB

I also have seen some graphs on solar intensities correlating with global warming. However, they do not go back very far with their correlations.

It is so logical that gravitational cycles would affect long-term cycles. My book also shows the cycles correlating with every El Nino and the rises in ocean temperatures in the Tropical South Pacific.

Am I saying no to solar cycles. Not entirely. Sunspots I say no. Solar intensity likely has a correlation, but not to amplitude and timing of the 5 global warming events during the past 1k yeas, and not to the 5 mega cycles during the past half million years.

I'm going to focus on solar effects for now, because besides lunar effects they are the most obvious - and best correlated - extraterrestrial effects. I understand that if an extraterrestrial climate driver is found then all terrestrial phenomena can be attributed to that external force (so, for example, you would expect to see a correlation between El Nino and warming trends because they are both symptoms of the same driving force).

You say that you are not saying no entirely to solar cycles - but if you are not saying no entirely then they must surely have some effect that would detract from the 100% correlation of lunar forces (say 99% lunar, 1% solar). Solar cycles must either have some effect or no effect for there to be your 100% correlation with the moon.

There seems to be a fairly strong correlation between the excessively low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age of the 17th-19th century. There most certainly is a time lag between solar output and its effect on Earth's climate, but one would expect that to be the case for a system in a state of perpetual dynamic equilibrium (one which always oscillates).

So how do you figure the Sun fits in to the overall picture?

:)

CB

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to focus on solar effects for now, because besides lunar effects they are the most obvious - and best correlated - extraterrestrial effects. I understand that if an extraterrestrial climate driver is found then all terrestrial phenomena can be attributed to that external force (so, for example, you would expect to see a correlation between El Nino and warming trends because they are both symptoms of the same driving force).

You say that you are not saying no entirely to solar cycles - but if you are not saying no entirely then they must surely have some effect that would detract from the 100% correlation of lunar forces (say 99% lunar, 1% solar). Solar cycles must either have some effect or no effect for there to be your 100% correlation with the moon.

There seems to be a fairly strong correlation between the excessively low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age of the 17th-19th century. There most certainly is a time lag between solar output and its effect on Earth's climate, but one would expect that to be the case for a system in a state of perpetual dynamic equilibrium (one which always oscillates).

So how do you figure the Sun fits in to the overall picture?

:)

CB

So far the correlative graphs I have seen on solar activity took into account the cooling in the little ice age during the 1500 to 1600s, but did not correlate well with global warming in the 1700s and the cool down in the 1800s.

The gravitational cycles are very precise in the beginning and ending of all 5 global warmings during the past 1000 years, and with all 5 coolings during the time period. The gravitational cycles likewise have the same harmonics as the approximate 116,000 year mega global warming cycles...and we are now at the peak of one.

So I do not believe the solar activity has much of a bearing on warmings and coolings for the short term 230 year cycles. But as a scientisit I cannot rule out the possibility of a little influence...as little as it may be.

So do you think the recent drop in solar activity (not just sunspots) recently plays into the cycles you are citing? And will it contribute to the rather rapid drop in global temperatures you predict?

I really do not believe the drop in solar activity plays a role. The graphs in my book speak for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi again

when you have time I would appreciate your response to this from above, its a genuine question so bear with me

okay, fine,

excuse my ignorance but just what correlates with what and over what time scale? So if the temperature shows a fall how near to that time scale is the magnetic or whatever variation showing similar?

are you able to show us a graph of a particular rise or fall, say the onset of the mini ice age in, what was it, the mid 1500-1600's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for being so prompt!

As I see things every bit of 'matter' has it's own electrical properties and so must obey the basic Tennant's of movement and forcing when encountering other EMF's.

Though not fully investigated I feel that EMF's will turn out to be a 'biggie' in both our understandings of ourselves and our world. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hi again

when you have time I would appreciate your response to this from above, its a genuine question so bear with me

okay, fine,

excuse my ignorance but just what correlates with what and over what time scale? So if the temperature shows a fall how near to that time scale is the magnetic or whatever variation showing similar?

are you able to show us a graph of a particular rise or fall, say the onset of the mini ice age in, what was it, the mid 1500-1600's?

Is confusing having 2 threads going. I just answered on the other thread and will here.

The gravitational cycle comes every 230 approximately as does global warming. These cycles line up with the warming cycles and determine the beginning and ending of warming. It is pretty much an immediate reaction to the cycles. The present cycle is in stage 1 of ending as is global warming. Stage 2 will see very dramatic cooling, and quite deep cooling over a span of only 5 to 20 years with temps back to where they were in the1800s, or even during the medieval cooling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a mod could close the other thread and we can all stick to this one?

Hi GWO.

You've more or less ruled out solar activity, but do you rule out the Cosmic Ray theory?

I guess it shouldn't be forgotten (with regards warming/cooling) that Co2 is actually pretty miniscule in the grand scale of things.

Interesting thread indeed.

tks again, yes it is confusing and thanks for bearing with me.

Are you really serious that we/Europe/World will go back to temperatures last seen in the 1800's?

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

is a link showing how much colder it was then than now

From the above posted link:

These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol

It hardly constitutes a "Global" factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of course not I was merely asking if temps of the 1800's were to occur people in this country might like to see what those values were.

indeed had you quoted the whole line and not been so selective then this is what I asked

Are you really serious that we/Europe/World will go back to temperatures last seen in the 1800's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
tks again, yes it is confusing and thanks for bearing with me.

Are you really serious that we/Europe/World will go back to temperatures last seen in the 1800's?

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

is a link showing how much colder it was then than now

Very serious. Is all outlined in my book found at http://www.globalweathercycles.com

Stage 1 now....not all that long before stage 2 and rapid deep cooling

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

Would you say there is a link between the gravitational cycles and the increasing decline in the Earth's magnetic field? Would the increasing movement of The North Pole also be as a result of this?

Historically there have been numerous magnetic reversals, have you discovered any link in the periodicities of these and the Lunar cycles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
David,

Would you say there is a link between the gravitational cycles and the increasing decline in the Earth's magnetic field? Would the increasing movement of The North Pole also be as a result of this?

Historically there have been numerous magnetic reversals, have you discovered any link in the periodicities of these and the Lunar cycles?

Hard questions on a subject I have not researched. But I would say no to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just joining the discussion as another researcher in this general field.

My results show that the Moon is a significant variable in atmospheric forcing but not the only external influence. This is why one can find various other cycles that are not related to the lunar orbit. For example, the large QBO cycle of about 27 months is probably related to Earth-Mars interactions and not to the Moon.

I wonder if you could describe in simple terms what causes a 231 year cycle (or 231.25 from the context of your abstract)? I am aware of cycles of 8.86 years, 18.6 years and 186 years in the lunar orbit, but nothing periodic at 231 years. In fact, at 231 years, the Moon is at the opposite end of its 18.6 year declination cycle. For example, this cycle reached a max in 2006. Going back 231 years, the Moon's declination range was at a mnimum in 1777.

The statements about much longer cycles are also quite obscure with relation to the Moon per se. Milankovitch cycles that are generally accepted as primary drivers of large-scale glacial cycles (23,000 yr, 41,000 yr and 100,000 yr) are of course related to the earth-Sun orbital variations over time, such as precession, eccentricity and obliquity. The Moon presumably maintains its orientation to the earth throughout these cycles and so how would the Moon be driving these longer-term cycles -- I think you will find that varying amounts of solar radiation are driving these large-scale variations.

Now, as to cycles of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, this is all very well and basically accepted by geologists on the longer time scale with respect to the aforementioned long-term cycles, but in the current era we have the addition of man-made greenhouse gases which are not governed by temperature trends so much as being independent of them or having a slight causal feedback on them. So even if the rest of the theory is true, have you made any allowances for the continued existence of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the foreseeable future, or will these remain in a naturally cooling global climate?

Your abstract jumps right from Bryson (1948) to your own work but in fact two generations of researchers including myself have been trying to gain publication (the normal way) -- I have also self-published but this does not count in the scientific community except where they have to deal with the practical consequences of the theories coming to the attention of the press or other scientists. We call this blacklisting in Canada, perhaps in America it is known as quality control or turf protection for Al Gore.

I can tell you that beyond your four kindly reviewers (who have now placed their professional futures on the line perhaps unwittingly) you will find it a lifetime's frustrating work to gain any sort of peer review on a larger scale, and you can get ready to be called all sorts of rather insulting names. However, you can expect a hostile review even from someone as sympathetic as myself if you try to disguise the Milankovitch cycles as part of some 100% accurate lunar model, this will only make the task of serious researchers even harder because we've gone through this "cycle" before, it has four component parts:

a. Vague claims of 100% accuracy

b. Attempts to shovel all complexities into one simple theoretical framework (the magic equation)

c. Refusal to tackle thorny questions of day to day, week to week and month to month variability

d. No recognition of regional variations, the "all regions the same" over-simplification

Not that the IPCC is doing any better, they have also fallen into all four of these traps. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick question, Reading through the threads breifly, it seems to be central to your theory that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by natural means. How does this square with the knowledge that the isotopic signature of the C02 in the atmosphere comes from the burning of specific fossil fuels ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...