Global Weather Oscillations

[Cycles]

Also that is a very fair point too

BFTP

Blast,

You have put forth excellent points. The abstract was written for a lay person to understand, and thus did not get technical.

The ideas put forth in this forum by all of you are very good.

Question? Which graph or table in the e-Book would be required to peak your interest?

Have tables on CO2, graphs on the PFM in Comparison to Warming, a great graph showing the PFM and El Nino occurrences over a 18 year period.

L

[Admiral_Bobski]

Blast,

You have put forth excellent points. The abstract was written for a lay person to understand, and thus did not get technical.

The ideas put forth in this forum by all of you are very good.

Question? Which graph or table in the e-Book would be required to peak your interest?

Have tables on CO2, graphs on the PFM in Comparison to Warming, a great graph showing the PFM and El Nino occurrences over a 18 year period.

L

A graph of the PFM in comparison to warming would be good, in addition to a précis of what the PFM actually is.

CB

[Cycles]

A graph of the PFM in comparison to warming would be good, in addition to a précis of what the PFM actually is.

CB

Would a snip of a portion of the 1000 year graph showing just 1 of the 5 global warming be ok? This would be about a 250 year period...either from about 1650 to 1900 or about 1250 to 1500? if so, which one?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Would a snip of a portion of the 1000 year graph showing just 1 of the 5 global warming be ok? This would be about a 250 year period...either from about 1650 to 1900 or about 1250 to 1500? if so, which one?

Would it be possible to have a snip of the last two cycles, 1250-1900? If not then I'll take the 1650-1900. (Out of interest, do you have a graphical comparison from 1900-present?).

CB

[Cycles]

David,

By your responses, I understand that you are reticent to divulge details of your own research in your E book.

However, can I ask whose temperature reconstructions you use to correlate your gravitational cycles?

As we know well on this forum, there are many reconstructed temperature series available, and considerable dispute as to which series most accurately represent the global picture before thermometric measurements were available, and even over this measured period, to the current day, which global temperature record is actually correct.

Since you have no published record, I assume that you use at least one reconstruction that has been published, and you should be able to give us a reference.

Thanks.

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast,

You have put forth excellent points. The abstract was written for a lay person to understand, and thus did not get technical.

The ideas put forth in this forum by all of you are very good.

Question? Which graph or table in the e-Book would be required to peak your interest?

Have tables on CO2, graphs on the PFM in Comparison to Warming, a great graph showing the PFM and El Nino occurrences over a 18 year period.

L

GWO

Obviously they were Captain C questions. I ahead of others would be more 'accepting' of your theory as I believe strongly in Lunar influence. You may not divulge but I have asked a question re when do you expect phase 2 to start. It is my assertion that certainly by 2015 but maybe as early as 2012 Global cooling will be obvious. We have already entered the perturbation cycle in Feb 2007 where El Nino 'died' suddenly and up popped La Nina. This surprised 'experts' but not me as I believe in the cycles and it did what it says on the tin.

BFTP

[Cycles]

GWO

Obviously they were Captain C questions. I ahead of others would be more 'accepting' of your theory as I believe strongly in Lunar influence. You may not divulge but I have asked a question re when do you expect phase 2 to start. It is my assertion that certainly by 2015 but maybe as early as 2012 Global cooling will be obvious. We have already entered the perturbation cycle in Feb 2007 where El Nino 'died' suddenly and up popped La Nina. This surprised 'experts' but not me as I believe in the cycles and it did what it says on the tin.

BFTP

Blast From the Past,

Phase 1 began this year as the lunar cycle came off its 8 to 9 year period, this is what caused the second temperature peak in the global warming event. The first peak was in the 1930s. Every global warming cycle has 2 temperature peaks followed by approxminately 70 to 75 years. This is equal to about 4x18.5. Every 4th cycle is the usually the warmest, and this is why it was so warm around 1100AD (4th cycle), and as warm today as 450k years ago (4th cycle of the 116k cycle).

As phase 1 begins after the mid portion of the approximate 18.5 year cycle, this cooling will continue until the end of the 18.5 year cycle. At this point, about the year 2017 there will be another warming, brief and not as warm as the the other 2. Then by 2023 the intersection of 2 PFM cycles will signal full blown major and very rapid cooling.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Blast From the Past,

Phase 1 began this year as the lunar cycle came off its 8 to 9 year period, this is what caused the second temperature peak in the global warming event. The first peak was in the 1930s. Every global warming cycle has 2 temperature peaks followed by approxminately 70 to 75 years. This is equal to about 4x18.5. Every 4th cycle is the usually the warmest, and this is why it was so warm around 1100AD (4th cycle), and as warm today as 450k years ago (4th cycle of the 116k cycle).

As phase 1 begins after the mid portion of the approximate 18.5 year cycle, this cooling will continue until the end of the 18.5 year cycle. At this point, about the year 2017 there will be another warming, brief and not as warm as the the other 2. Then by 2023 the intersection of 2 PFM cycles will signal full blown major and very rapid cooling.

Thanks for that

As an aside this is coinciding very closely to solar cycle 25 expected to be of Dalton type minima....coincidence or part of the rapid cooling process.

BFTP

[Roo]

One reason I went the route of an e-book is that my research included the whole picture instead of a snippet in a journal. A journal publication would not provide enough space or provide justice for the findings. Journals only allow 8 or so graphs, maybe 10 at the most. They also limit you to about 8000 words...not enough.

Surely this would be suitable for a MPhil or PhD thesis? If four senior meteorologists are backing you, it would be very easy to get a place at a university (and once you had secured a place, funding would follow). That way your research would be securely copyright, and would have to be taken seriously. Have you looked into that route and, if not, why not? I would be happy to guide you through the process.

[Cycles]

Thanks for that

As an aside this is coinciding very closely to solar cycle 25 expected to be of Dalton type minima....coincidence or part of the rapid cooling process.

BFTP

Probably a coincidence. I did read an article that talked about solar cycles, but they did not match up well with cooling in the 1800s. I have also looked at solar cycles for other climate changes but could not find harmonics that stayed in phase with climate events. The problem with the solar cycles is there are very few sub cycles. The lunar cycles have many differing cycles that explain the variations in weather/climate events, both long term and short term (from thousands of years down to a month or less)

Surely this would be suitable for a MPhil or PhD thesis? If four senior meteorologists are backing you, it would be very easy to get a place at a university (and once you had secured a place, funding would follow). That way your research would be securely copyright, and would have to be taken seriously. Have you looked into that route and, if not, why not? I would be happy to guide you through the process.

Roo

The e-book could easily be incorporated into a 2 semister course, it will likely be the future wave in research teaching. I may think about something on a short term basis, say 1 semister or so. Your question is intriguing. You have a University in mind? You can send a message if you do not want to post the reply.

[Roo]

The e-book could easily be incorporated into a 2 semister course, it will likely be the future wave in research teaching. I may think about something on a short term basis, say 1 semister or so. Your question is intriguing. You have a University in mind?

No, no university in mind, just a few years of lecturing and working for a peer review journal (albeit in archaeology) and wondering why you had not chosen the PhD route as a means of getting your work accepted.

[sub-polar men]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

David.

What do you mean when you say that in the new moon and the full moon intersection cycles and how it warms and cools the earth over 231 year cycle? I’m thinking that if the new moon is 28 degrees north the full moon is 28 degrees south on the other side.

Edited July 15, 2008 by sub-polar men

[Cycles]

David.

What do you mean when you say that in the new moon and the full moon intersection cycles and how it warms and cools the earth over 231 year cycle? I'm thinking that if the new moon is 28 degrees north the full moon is 28 degrees south on the other side.

Actually it does not matter, a full moon at 28 north will have a gravitational envelope at 28 degrees north and south...both sides of the earth at the same time. Same with the new moon.

So, if there is a full moon at 23 degrees north, there is a simultaneous envelope above and below the equator, thus affecting the atmospheric high pressure belt on both sides of the equator.

[Essan]

I haven't read your book and I haven't read all this thread ...... But may I still ask a simple question to make things clear in my mind (and I'm sure many others)?

Are you arguing that your theory explains all warming/cooling? Or is it just the basis behind a general trend? In other words do you accept that other factors - ranging from milankovitch cycles, solar activity and ocean circulation to human pollution, deforestation, contrails etc - can amplify and/or hide the more general warming or cooling trend that your theory predicts?

[Cycles]

I haven't read your book and I haven't read all this thread ...... But may I still ask a simple question to make things clear in my mind (and I'm sure many others)?

Are you arguing that your theory explains all warming/cooling? Or is it just the basis behind a general trend? In other words do you accept that other factors - ranging from milankovitch cycles, solar activity and ocean circulation to human pollution, deforestation, contrails etc - can amplify and/or hide the more general warming or cooling trend that your theory predicts?

Essan,

I am saying it explains most all global warming cycles and cooling cycles. It is likely the gravitational cycles become in coincidence with the milankovitch cycles, but the other cycles you mention are not a controling influence on cooling and warming cycles. It is the gravitational cycles that actually control the oceanic cycles (as seen in the book).

No, no university in mind, just a few years of lecturing and working for a peer review journal (albeit in archaeology) and wondering why you had not chosen the PhD route as a means of getting your work accepted.

Roo

We have a political situation in the United States with AGW versus NGW (natural global warming). I am not affliated with a university, but I was told by some university people that Government Grants are not available for research on Natural cycles, only man's connection. Also, if you are in a university you are ostrized if you talk about natural cycles. There have been many instances where grants have been taken away from a university.

I had a man with his Phd in oceanogray and meteorology. He was going to help me publish a paper on the El Nino, but when he found out I was also working on Natural global warming, he had to pull out of the project with me. He was in fear of losing his positiion at the univesity and losing grants.

Rumor is that Dr. Gray the renowned hurricane forecaster lost grants because of his stance on global warming....the list goes on and on.

I was even told by a leading company that if I continue my route on natural global warming, I would be ostricized and not be able to get contracts.

Well, no one can fire me and I do not receive Government Grants, so I am going ahead on my own.

[laserguy]

Well, no one can fire me and I do not receive Government Grants, so I am going ahead on my own.

I salute you GWO. Good luck and may the truth out.

[Mondy]

I had a man with his Phd in oceanogray and meteorology. He was going to help me publish a paper on the El Nino, but when he found out I was also working on Natural global warming, he had to pull out of the project with me. He was in fear of losing his positiion at the univesity and losing grants.

That sadly says it all about "movements" within the AGW theory. Dissent and you are indeed ostracized. It's evident on every forum, talkshow, website, TV channel etc.

I wish you luck with your e-Book and research GWO.

[Devonian]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

Perhaps it's that when people hear ideas that they think, how can I put it, a bit off field, they try to distance themselves as politely as they can but that is interpreted as them being silenced when it's really them distancing themselves. No? OK, have it you way, it's a conspiracy then

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Devonian

[Cycles]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

Perhaps it's that when people hear ideas that they think, how can I put it, a bit off field, they try to distance themselves as politely as they can but that is interpreted as them being silenced when it's really them distancing themselves. No? OK, have it you way, it's a conspiracy then

I'm pretty convinced another 10 years of warming wouldn't change some minds one iota. Me, 10 years of cooling that science can't explain and I'm all ears. We'll see.

Devon,

Actually we had 40 years of cooling right in the midst of the so called AGW from the 1940s through the 1970s, and that did not change the mind of the AGW people. I really don't think the AGW will give in after 10 years of cooling.

I salute you GWO. Good luck and may the truth out.

Thank you Laser

That sadly says it all about "movements" within the AGW theory. Dissent and you are indeed ostracized. It's evident on every forum, talkshow, website, TV channel etc.

I wish you luck with your e-Book and research GWO.

Delta

I thank you for your support

[Devonian]

Devon,

Actually we had 40 years of cooling right in the midst of the so called AGW from the 1940s through the 1970s, and that did not change the mind of the AGW people. I really don't think the AGW will give in after 10 years of cooling.

Which is why I used the word 'that science can't explain' - science can explain the period you mention. Besides, actually, I wasn't alive then

[Cycles]

Which is why I used the word 'that science can't explain' - science can explain the period you mention. Besides, actually, I wasn't alive then

Aside from the research in my book how does science explain the cooling during the 1940s into the 1970s? Couldn't of come from the AGW side, CO2 was still going up during the period.

[laserguy]

I'm amazed how conspiracy minded some people are, 'movements', 'may the truth out' - get a grip fellas!

Look, there is no conspiracy to silence people like GWO, such a conspiracy simply couldn't be sustained. But, some people think there is a conspiracy and the more they're told there isn't one, the more evidence there is it isn't, the more they get convinced it is. I find it very odd.

I've pestered the BBC for years,wanting to know why they ascribe any 'unusual' weather event to AGW and why they very rarely report on weather events that may upset the public perception of the AGW applecart - ie instances of record cold etc. I've also asked why they are incessantly going on about Arctic ice and how it (what?) is due to AGW,but I've yet to hear them mention increased Antarctic ice. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Nick L]

I've pestered the BBC for years,wanting to know why they ascribe any 'unusual' weather event to AGW and why they very rarely report on weather events that may upset the public perception of the AGW applecart - ie instances of record cold etc. I've also asked why they are incessantly going on about Arctic ice and how it (what?) is due to AGW,but I've yet to hear them mention increased Antarctic ice. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Unbiased news service? My left backside. I have never seen them post one news story which goes against Global Warming, I shall have a look around and see how many pro Global Warming stories I can find, then I shall see how many against Global Warming. But I have never seen one.

For

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7503060.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7006640.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6944401.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6171053.stm

There are dozens more. Now lets see how many anti Global Warming stories there are...

Against

I seriously could not find any. There was also a video "highlighting" how the Antarctic ice is "retreating2 back in March.

Edited July 15, 2008 by nick2702

[Cycles]

I've pestered the BBC for years,wanting to know why they ascribe any 'unusual' weather event to AGW and why they very rarely report on weather events that may upset the public perception of the AGW applecart - ie instances of record cold etc. I've also asked why they are incessantly going on about Arctic ice and how it (what?) is due to AGW,but I've yet to hear them mention increased Antarctic ice. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Many news markets are like this. It is extremely political. My news release was not picked up outlets that are slanted toward the AGW. Many TV networks will only provide 1 side of the issue.

[johnny1972]

GWO

I hope you are right re the cooling and it being part of a natural cycle. I have personally never subscribed to GW and the media's constant rhyming on about it. I don't contribute on the forum to this topic as i have no experience to backup my posts like yourself and many others on it however i follow with great interest the posts. Unfortunately it is near impossible to backup a personal opinion so i stay quiet. That aside if i can workout paypal i will certainly purchase your book in the next week or two and read your findings with great interest. £5 ($9.95) is hardly a massive amount of money to part with.

Anyway fair play to you for holding your own and arguing your corner with your research and i hope you get the success and credit your work deserves ! Please continue contributing on here no matter how tight the going may get at times ! GOOD LUCK