Very interesting Laura. I wish there were more in the field looking at things outside of the CO2 debate. I am curious to know what proxies he used- especially for those periods before AD 1600. This past week end I was looking through the recently released IPCC 4AR, and thier section on proxies produced nothing more than speghetti graphs that looked to me like nothing more than random noise. How one could get a "good singal" from such a graph is a mystery to me.

The search for a global forcing mechanism continues.

Funny how skeptics are not funded often but AGW proponents get money out the wazoo. I wonder how much money the govt has put toward research outlining why GW is not an AGW problem.

Seems to be a reason to maintain the AGW proponent mentality.

To my knowledge there are no federal grants available to pursue natural GW cycles. So actually those getting the GW grants are in reality the skeptics, and we that know GW are natural cycles, are not the skeptics.

David:

Thanks for the reply, hate to admit it, but I am having a Monday, can you confirm that govt grants are primarily going to those who agree with the idea of AGW, or am I incorrect in that there is no bias either way.

Seems to me that many of the skeptics are under, or not well funded, and the Goreacles of the world get money from many different sources, including governmental.

You understood me correct Darren, there is very little or no funding avialable to prove that GW is natural cycles. This is why I have done research out of my own pocket. The research presented to and from the government is extremely biased toward man-made GW. Many researchers are actually losing funding if they indicate a belief in natural cycles.

It seems somewhere "skeptic" got a bad connotation to it. Skeptic comes from the Greek word "scepticus" meaning "to consider, examine". In the case of AGW we have believers and skeptics. One camp takes observations and has been fairly quiet and the other extrapolates a non-smooth (actually very rough) function, makes wild predictions that get published as fact, and get s loads of funding. Care to guess which is which?

Those thinking that CO2 is the culprit behind GW will go down in history as the losers. I keep hearing how "skeptics" have an uphill battle and how there are so few. This is simply not the case. Please see this site http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm . Someone saw temps rising and noticed that CO2 levels had also risen and made a bad correlation. CO2 is not the culprit. CO2 levels were steady at about 280 ppm over the last 5,000 years and we had great temp fluctuations, time to look somewhere else.

The thing that irritates me the most is that we face real problems and are wasting money, time, and effort on hysteria. Carbon trading is going to become a 100 billion business in no time at all with no return. Businesses that produce too much CO2 will have to raise prices to "buy" their extra CO2 while companies that produce little CO2 will get profits by "selling" what they don't produce without having to actually produce anything. It is bad economics and will be extremely difficult to stop once in motion. 100 billion dollar organizations do not disappear even if their purpose does.

David,

What triggers the GWO? Is it Milankovitch or sunspot cycles?

David:

Thanks for the reply. I am saddened that you have to spend money out of pocket but I am grateful to you for your contribution. It definintely bolsters the 'ole theory about following the money.

Maybe you can create a fake company that trades in offsetting the CO2 offsets. I mean there are lots of fake companies trading in CO2 offsets including the Goreacle's. That way people like me could buy some fake CO2, feel good about it and you would make a gajillion dollars (rounded up of course). Then you could take that money, put it on New York City to go under water in 4 years (as it currently being given stakes, see other threads here) and turn it into Bill Gates type income. Then you could buy 5 planes like Travolta and fly every where you wanted. How about that for a plan?

Or maybe I'll just go back to work and stop daydreaming.

Alan,
It is neither the Milankovitch or sunspot cycles. If you check the entire GWO website you'll see that the Primary Forcing Mechanism "PFM" triggers the El Nino, controls hurricane tracks and landfalls, Global Warming, and many many other climate cycles. I have a paper currently in private peer review before going to a journal, the paper explains the processes, too lengthy for a blog site.

There is also very good evidence that the length of the sunspot cycle (between 9 - 11 years) affects climate. When the sunspot cycle is long, the earth warms. During the little ice age there were periods of no sun spots, and the sun spot cycle is estimated at an average of 9 years. Now it's 11 years.

Everybody discounts these natural forcing events in all the hype about man made warming. Why? Man made warming is a state funded industry.

David,
In the first graph on the 'Global Warming' page on your website, I assume that the aqua curve represents your 'Primary Forcing Mechanism'? I'm curious just what data you have from for the years 1000-1900 that you could possibly use to derive this curve. (Even the proxy-based temperature records for that period are kind of a stretch.)

David Dilley : When will the paper be available ? While the information presented on your website sounds very provocative, there is no evidence presented to back up any of your theories. That is one of the AGW proponents biggest criticisms of Dr. Bill Gray - that all of his theories and claims are based on "his personal beliefs" or "his personal experience" without any mathematical data/calculations to back them up - he is called "a pattern recognition guy" and is accused of being very weak on the physics.

So what is the PFM/PTM ? You described the manifestations attributable to them - shifting high pressure systems resulting in El Nino/La Nina, Bermuda High location which steers Atlantic hurricanes, etc. - but you do not describe what it is, how it works or why it exists at all. Again, when will the paper be available, or the answers presented on the website ?

I just want to thank Mr. Dilley for keeping up the good fight. By doing this on your own you provide many times more credibility than those who get unlimited funding. You and many others need much more exposure. I figure it's only a matter of time that the world will see that none of these dire predictions are even coming close to materialising, then maybe the tide will turn and the MSM will finally pick up on it.

David,

Reading through your website, it appears that your company is based upon this theory of "primary forcing mechanism" and "global warming oscillations." When one reads your website, it's clear that this is how the company is being promoted. So your claim of being unfunded is very misleading.....you're basically putting money into your own business. This is similar to how corporations do internal research and development. How is what you do any different?

The way Laura's blog was written, I had the impression you did these studies with your own money out of the goodness of your heart.

I'm not arguing whether or not your theory is correct. But this research you're doing is clearly in line with furthering your business and I think it's important that people know that.

This sounds like the Singer/Avery idea. Could you explain how it differs?

Your site seems to focus on relatively minor climate fluctuations within the present interglacial. What about the glacial cycles themselves?

Also, you say "This research is currently under peer review and will go to a leading climate journal this summer." Peer review is coordinated by the editors of a journal only after a paper is submitted. Please clarify.

I am not a climate scientist or the likes but have an interest so please excuse my lack of knowledge. Am i right in saying that the little ice age occurred in at least europe between about 1300 and 1850, and yet David shows that through much of this period there is warming?

Laura,

It's a pity that you folks at Accuweather can't tell a crackpot when you see one.

tamino:

You know I was thinking the same thing when they did a video interview with Michael Mann, and Barbara Boxer.

Guess maybe the folks at ACCUWEATHER are just trying to let the information on both sides be presented for us (the unwashed) review.

Or maybe you, like others who buy into the AGW concept are afraid of any information that may dispel the hysteria that is the AGW cause.

Mark
I am a retired National Weather Service Meteorologist. My website and research was done solely by me and the retirement pension I receive. I have no contracts, and no funding. Thus, the research is unbiased and based on truth, and scientific facts.

John,
When investigating all possible external forcing mechanisms that could force and trigger climate changes, the sunspot cycles were looked at very very closely, but absolutely no correlations were found. The sunspot cycles are too regular and do not exhibit other cycles within them.

TomP
You are correct, the aqua sinusoidal plot is the preliminary data for the PFM cycles. The PFM cycles have a 100% correlation to all SST warmings in the central South Pacific since 1914, and do control the displacement of anticyclones, and thus recurring climate cycles. If you go to the home page on my website you can email me about the PFM. Also, I am looking for help publishing my research, it jumps climate forecasting 40-years into the future.

GW
Some of the evidence to support my work was presented at the National Weather Association's annual conference in Cleveland back in October, and at another symposium last month. The research is totally different than what meteorologists and climatologists are used to, and thus difficult to 100% convince them in a 20 minutes presentation. This is why it needs to be published. However, the current environment and attitude of journals toward natural cycles is making this difficult. Because of this, I would like exposure and backing from others...so keep asking what the PFM is and I'll end up tellling you.

Chris,

I have contacted numerous newspapers etc about this blog posting and my website. They have been brainwashed and do not dare to publish the truth. I can prove all my claims posted on my website.

Chris Bloom
The paper under review is the PFM as it is related to triggering El Ninos. It has been reviewed by peers that actually do peer reviews for journals. By doing this type of peer review minor points being added and corrected. It has been peer reviewed by an editor and the comments are being addressed. However, it is a groundbreaking new approach, and many editors cannot think outside of the box. Many giant steps forward are done by scientists not within the restraints of the "Grant" Box.

Michael Mcnaughton
Long-term warming periods usually last close to 1,500 years. The previous long-term warm period ended near the year 1,300 to 1,500 AD, and the next long-term period then began. Remember, there are long-term warmings of about 1,500 years, and about 5 short-term global warming periods within each.

Laura
It is unfortunate that the scientists, politicians and journalists have been swayed and brainwashed by poor science presented by others. Man-made global warming only exists with the uninformed. Just look at the natural cycles during the past 5 thousand years, the politicians and unfortunately you have not.

From what I have seen, a little ice age started about 1000AD. Before this, the earth was warmer than it is now. Grapes grew well in England, Nova Scotia, and other places that are now too cold and wet for grapes. The change happened suddenly. People were seeing snow in places where they had never seen snow before. There were other oscillations in the weather throughout history. In the 1930's and 1970's scientists were worried about another ice age comming. In the 70's, some scientists were advocating spreading black ash on the polar ice caps to help melt them, and try to keep large glacers from spreading southward. If sudden "mini-ice ages" can happen, then why not sudden warming. I think that the hysteria over man made global warming is funding driven, and supported by people who are sure that the climate is stable.

Much has been said that as the climate changes, the natural forests will also change. Well, they have in the past.

I'm a forester, and we have a term called relic communities. These are naturally occurring forests that are seemingly out of their range.

When I was taking my forest ecology courses, they took us to a forest of red, black and white spruce. That forest is indigenous to Canada. Yet, it grows outside of State College. Its a couple of hundred miles south of its range and growing in a frost pocket.

There is also a forest that is composed of shortleaf pine. This is indigenous to southern Maryland and Delaware. That also was outside of State College, but I have also worked in shortleaf pine forests outside of Harrisburg. Both of these forests were on southern facing slopes.

Seems to me that there are natural occurring cycles and we have physical proof that it has been both warmer and cooler in the past to support these ecosystems.

Tanino
Unfortunately many people have bought into the press and politicians, and very few look at the real facts. Just look at the 30 cycles during the past 5 thousand years and you can see that global warming occurs without the help of man, automobiles, factories and hysteria.

"I have contacted numerous newspapers etc about this blog posting and my website. They have been brainwashed and do not dare to publish the truth."

Two things: First, this is not the place to advertise your website. Second, you say newspapers have been brainwashed? Wow, I bet you didn't ask The Washington Post to publish it...

"Man-made global warming only exists with the uninformed."

Oh, really David? Then all the people who do as much research as you and think differently are uninformed? HOW ARROGANT.

Emiliano