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

Sawyer
The research in the manuscript I am pursuing to publish has proven documentation that the PFM forces high-pressure systems to be displaced by as little as 2-degrees in latitude over a period of a month. With the PFM acting over a longer period, such as 50-90 years during a global warming episode, the high-pressure centers and jet-stream would be displaced by as much as 4 degrees in latitude, or about 250 miles. This displacement explains global warming to a tee, and explains why trees in Maryland and Delaware are growing in PA now.

Gray
From what I understand the man-made global warming hysteria is driven by politics, available grants, and the media. Real science is being kept from the public because of the pressure from man-made hysteria.

Emilano
I am sorry, but those that believe in man-made global warming, and those that have researched it and still believe it is man-made are all uninformed. Remember Emilano, those that say it is man-made do not acknowledge the other global warming cycles, they only talk about the past 50-75 years...if you do not look beyond this period you are uninformed, and are misleading the public. And I am not trying to advertise my website, I do not have any contracts or grants, I am trying to get the truth to the public.

Mr. Dilley,

What's your source for the temperature data in the graphs displayed on your web site?

GW
You asked on Tuesday when the PFM global warming manuscript would be published. I am in process of discussing this with a publisher, trying to get the EL Nino/PFM and GW/PFM papers into the same journal. If it can be done, probable publication would be in December. Would like to find a faster way of getting the information out.

tamino
One source was the World Climate Report...seems like they do not even look at their own figures from the past, just the last 50 to 75 years. The ice blue PFM cycle on the graph was totally produceed by GWO.

David Dilley, as you will see from a look at Tamino's website, he is a mathematical statistician specializing in time series analysis. If you provide him with your source data I'm confident he'll give it a fair reading.

Also, as far as I'm aware World Climate Report doesn't post the data from which their graphs are derived, which is fair enough since they're not in the data-gathering business. Hopefully you weren't just eyeballing those graphs.

Steve Bloom
I would like to talk to Tamino 1 on 1, he can email me through the home page of my website, or I will look for his. I am looking for help in getting both manuscripts published, and getting information out on global warming. I presented at the NWA annual conference in Cleveland and received high praise.

Steve Bloom
Data from present to the year 1000 came from one source and data from present to 5k years ago from another source, both reliable and used widely. The PFM is my own source however, and it is also used by GWO for hurricane landfall prediction and SST warmings. The PFM is a natural cycle that has many other cycles within it, and this is why it can be used for short-term climate changes as well as long-term fluctuations. Again, I would like to hear from interested individuals concerning my research.

Mr. Dilley,

On your global warming page there are two graphs, both of which show past temperature as well as other information. The first graph shows data back to the year 1000, and the temperature data look remarkably similar to the classic "hockey stick" graph of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes. The second graph shows data going back 5000 years.

I've made a point to investigate the scientific literature on paleoclimate temperature reconstructions, but I've never seen anything like your 5000-year graph. What is the exact source for the data used to produce this graph, so we can all go get it ourselves and verify your source.

And please explain the inconsistency that the temperature representations on your two graphs don't agree with each other. Do you even have actual numerical data for these time series? Or are you just eyeballing some graph you copied from a blog? Because I'll be honest with you: the only reference you've provided so far is "world climate report," which is a blog. And visiting that blog, I don't see any actual data at all -- just links to scientific organizations (NASA GISS and HadCRU), neither of which provide paleoclimate reconstructions.

So, Mr. Dilley, tell us all the exact source for the actual data used for these graphs, and explain why they don't agree with each other.

Emiliano,
You lost your bet, I have contacted the Washington Post and there was no response.

Hey Tamino:

Was wondering if you could provide the exact source for the information relating to paleoclimate temperatures? Further, can you provide the exact methodology used to derive these temperatures? Additionally, can you provide the exact locations where these temperatures were identified? And at these locations, please identify the exact years when these average temperatures were identified.

Anything less is obviously a statistical approximation and therefore not comparable to modern measurements.

Darren asked,

Was wondering if you could provide the exact source for the information relating to paleoclimate temperatures?

Well, Darren, I seriously doubt that you're the least bit interested in the actual data. But for those readers who are, the methodology, location of data sources, etc., can be found in the original scientific publications. Several of the more prominent reconstructions are detailed in these peer-reviewed scientific papers:

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 26, pg. 759.

Mann, M.E., and Jones, P.D. 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, pg. 1820.

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karl 2005, Nature, Vol. 433, pp. 613-617.

I will also point out, Darren, that your comment was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am not the one who came to this forum making claims about global warming. That would be Mr. Dilley.

He not only made remarkable claims, he contradicts the vast majority of the climate science community. So: I asked him where he got his data. Seems like a pretty simple request to me. After all, if you're going to make remarkable claims about global warming you should have some actual data, right? So far the only answers forthcoming are "world climate report" (a blog with no data) and "Data from present to the year 1000 came from one source and data from present to 5k years ago from another source."

WHAT source? Mr. Dilley, do you even have any actual data, or did you just copy somebody else's graphs? Whose graphs? What data?

In my poker circle, we have a saying: put up or shut up.

Tamino:
First of all I am not sure what inconsistencies your are referring to on the 2 graphs. You may email me from my website.
Secondly, the first graph is data used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)plot of the Northern Hemisphere�s temperature over the past 1,000 years. Some do not like this graph because it helps Al Gore and the man-made warming concept. However, proper analyses such as what I did actually discredits Mr. Gore's and others findings from the same 1000 year data. Or in other words, proper analyses displays cycles that everyone else has overlooked, and these cycles correspond with the PFM cycles displayed in light blue. Even if one does not like the hockey stick graph, history and proper analyses documentes cyclical warming and cooling periods during the past 1000 years.
The second graph is a global temperature reconstruction from a very reliable source.

Tamino:
Yes my findings contradict the current understanding of the politicians, media and those getting grants to prove man-made warming. There are over 20,000 scientists that agree with me but are afraid to speak up. Many have lost grants if they mention natural cycles, and some have lost their jobs. You may critize me all you want, but seeing is believing. The world is still recovering from an ice age and remains colder than almost 80% of the history of the earth. We are still in a glacial period with more ice at the poles than during almost 80% of the history of the earth. CO2 and oxygen is actually at some of the lowest levels in the history of the earth. Oxygen is produced by plants on the earth, and plants love higher temperatures which hold more water vapor and more CO2, and plants thrive on CO2 to produce oxygen.

Ah Tamino:

You would be incorrect, I am indeed interested in the data. I really only care about the information being correct. I am so glad that your cites are peer reviewed. That is so important in today's world, would hate for someone to just make statements that a bunch of other people didn't agree completely with. Kinda reminds me of a bunch of lemmings.

If my post is irrelevent, why respond?

Your company is marketing itself with its self-proclaimed "revolutionary" breakthrough in weather called The Primary Forcing Mechanism. So I ask again: how is your research not related to your business and not related to making a profit?

I notice our resident skeptics haven't touched this thread with a ten foot pole. Why is this?

no tamino you didnt just ask a question you accused someone who does not reflect your opinion on global warming with plagarism, "eyeballing", and insinuate his source of data is inaccurate...no matter, what the outcome of mr dilley's work, it seems he is going to make it public for peer review...you on the other hand make accusations because it may question your "VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" scam...

Mark:

I am offended that you don't consider me a skeptic. Thought I had made that much clear. Say, can you tell me what the Goreacle and the UN have done with all of the money they have been given over the years? Did they put it back into green things or just fly all over spouting off the need to do something immediately?

And why, oh why, do you have a problem with people making money if they are a potential skeptic? Bet everything would be just fine if one made a profit and they believed in the AGW hype.

Darren:
I thank you for defending the profit issue that Mark keeps brining up. As I have stated over and over, I am running the corporation etc. only with my retirement pension, there are absolutely no contracts or grants involved. My primary purpose is awareness to the public, researchers, politicians and media...the world has been uninformed too long.

Because it takes an extraordinary amount of time to get new thinking published, I am pursuing other outlets as well. My goal is to have the El Nino/PFM manuscript published. It is very large, about 90k characters, 18k words and 40 pages with 13 graphs. It explains the mechanics of the PFM and how it controls sea surface temperatures in tropical south pacific, and the triggering of El Ninos through the displacement of anticyclones as induced by the PFM. This manuscript needs to be published or made public because it describes the PFM and leads into other research showing how the PFM controls regional precipitation, hurricane landfall tracks and yes, global warming.

sammy K:
I agree with you sammy K. However, I must admit that although Tamino's first comment began by saying "It's a pity that you folks at Accuweather can't tell a crackpot when you see one", his later comments have been more inquisitive than badgering. In all fairness to Tamino, I do praise him. And this is what I want, open minds so that they may receive and perceive new information, and to get the real truth out to the mis-informed world.

David:

Your welcome.

I am getting more and more annoyed at the rhetoric and hypocrisy of the AGW crowd. And I absolutely hate the ideas they have for "solving" this "problem". It almost seems as though they say the solutions are more important than the problem. Makes one think doesn't it?

And if anyone should even question the "consensus", obviously they have to be backed by some sort of conspiracy intended to destroy the planet upon which the conspiratists live. That makes sense doesn't it?

Darren:
One problem with the agw is they all feel that the planet will die within 60-years if nothing is done. Well agw, the planet is still in a glacial period with as much or more ice at the poles than nearly 80% of the history of the earth. The earth is recovering from an ice age, it needs warming to produce more vegitation and more oxygen.

Once natural cooling begins sometime after 2015 and no later than 2030-3040 the earth will cool dramatically over the next 20-years...we need to plan for this.

I am getting more and more annoyed at the rhetoric and hypocrisy of the AGW crowd.

No doubt. I wonder, though, did you bother to read any of the material for this thread? For example, did you read anything from Tamino's site? From Dilley's site? How about the cites that Tamino offered in response to your request?

I really only care about the information being correct.

Since you've never to hesitated to comment on papers you haven't read and documentaries you haven't seen, I hope you'll excuse me for wondering whether you decide whether the information is "correct" before -- or after -- you familiarize yourself with it.

Meanwhile, Dr. Dilley, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the history of participants on a blog like this before you go too far out on a limb in support or opposition to them. That is, if you hope to strengthen your reputation as an objective researcher as opposed to, for instance, a "crackpot" (to quote an earlier participant).

"And why, oh why, do you have a problem with people making money if they are a potential skeptic?"

LOL. I don't. But I also think it's important to make it clear that this guy is attempting to profit from this discovery of "primary forcing mechanism." This is not "unfunded" work. This is a personal investment in one's own company.

"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."

And the fact that this guy is attempting to profit from this so-called discovery makes this statement that you made sound extremely, extremely naive now, Darren.

You're right about one thing though, Darren. Follow the money. It's a shame you didn't do that here instead of being a cheerleader

Daren and David,

I appreciate your efforts and have to remark that I find tamino's reference of the various MBH studies at the same time while asking David to provide his data sources rather hysterically funny. MBH won't share their data or algorithms with anyone outside of their immediate circle of associates. We are all supposed to believe and accept their science because they are the experts and we who question are too dumb to get it anyway.

Please keep up the good work. It is about time that the provincial world of climate science started opening itself up to a much wider diversity of theories.

BrooklineTom:
Your comments are wise, and I myself would like to familiarize myself with participants on the blog site, but if they do not offer any information, I cannot. I have asked those that have emailed me if they know tamino and/or his site, but they also did not know. I also do not know anything about yourself. Unless the people posting comments provide a link to them, I cannot familiarize myself with them, or their thoughts on issues. I am open minded, but not a mind reader.

Sam and Mark:
I thank both of you for your kind words of encouragement.
I do plan on disclosing the PFM soon, even before plublishing. If there is anyone out there that would like to help getting the El Nino/PFM and Global Warming/PFM published, please contact me.

Mark:

I see a major difference between personal investment and grants received from either governments or special interest groups. Sad that you don't see that difference. Guess I just can't be nearly as worldly as you are.

Can you tell me now how much retirement money Gore has put into his carbon offset company? How about the escapdes of Sheryl Crow et al? How much of their personal investment is at risk? Gosh, do you think that his little concerts this summer will be down non-profit? You are as much of a cheerleader for Gore as I might be of others.

BT:

No excuse needed, it is a very valid point that I completely recognize. I tend to develop an opinion prior to reading any of the provided research cites. I then evaluate the cite based upon my knowledge relating to all aspects of the topic. I suppose you could say that I should have an open mind prior to reading the cite, but I sincerely doubt that anyone, including yourself, can have an open mind about everything you see or read. Beyond that, this being as much a political issue as a geo-physical concern, I also temper my evaluation based upon the supposed stance of the source.

That said, the rhetoric I am annoyed by has nothing to do with Tamino or his site. It has to do with all of the issues being bandied about by the mass media away from this particular blog site.

Dr. Dilley, in the left-hand navbar you'll find a text entry box labeled "SEARCH THIS BLOG". If you enter a handle, such as "BrooklineTom" or "Darren", and select the "Comments" radio-button, you'll get a list of topics on which that person has commented.

For participants as active as Darren, Mark and myself, I think you can get a handle on our respective personae rather immediately.

Welcome to the blog, by the way.

"Once natural cooling begins sometime after 2015 and no later than 2030-3040 the earth will cool dramatically over the next 20-years...we need to plan for this."

Am I uninformed, David? With all the respect you deserve, but where did you take that information from? What makes you think THAT will happen, when all IPCC's reports and other organisations predict the opposite?

Saying the Earth is going to cool down dramatically sometime in the next 20 years is modelling... And people who question IPCC's reports based their critics on the inaccuracy of modelling... and still you use it (unless you have a crystal ball) but to predict the opposite.

In my opinion, that's a huge contradiction.

Emiliano

Dr. Diley,

I will note for the record that you ascribe all warming to natural cycles as in dimissing any human attribution. The warming is most likely natural and manmade! And any cooling is likely to be partially offset by the burgeoning greenhouse ( i.e augmented by Man ) It's not an either or proposition!

Emilano:
There are many researchers that feel the same as I do about global warming being a natural cycle. Remember Emilano, currently the only grants available for global warming research are for studies concerning man-made causes. Those that speak out pro-natural cycles are losing grants (this is what I have been told by universities). Also, many companies are staying neutral on the issue because if they lean toward natural cycles, they are ostracized within the meteorological and climate change world.
And yes Emilano, the modelers are incorrect with their findings concerning CO2 as the cause for global warming...just look at the graphs Emilano, we did not have fossil fuel emmisions from automobiles and factories during the 4 prior global warming episodes during the past 1,000 years, and the 20 other epidsodes during the 4,000 years prior to that.
Yes, I modeled my own forecast from past climate data, and by using the Primary Forcing Mechanism PFM cycles, and this is why I know the climate will naturally cool in the near future. My methodology is much different than that used by the man-made global warming segment and the IPPC that mainly look at only the past 75 years of the worlds climate history.

BT;
Just a quick question BT. I am new to this blog site so could you fill me in concerning your statement, especially your second sentence...."the rhetoric I am annoyed by has nothing to do with Tamino or his site. It has to do with all of the issues being bandied about by the mass media away from this particular blog site".

Darren, in your comment of 3-May, above, you wrote:
Was wondering if you could provide the exact source for the information relating to paleoclimate temperatures? Further, can you provide the exact methodology used to derive these temperatures? Additionally, can you provide the exact locations where these temperatures were identified? And at these locations, please identify the exact years when these average temperatures were identified.

Anything less is obviously a statistical approximation and therefore not comparable to modern measurements.

Tamino, to his credit, ignored your sarcasm and gave you precisely what you asked for -- three cites.

To which you replied:
You would be incorrect, I am indeed interested in the data. I really only care about the information being correct. I am so glad that your cites are peer reviewed. That is so important in today's world, would hate for someone to just make statements that a bunch of other people didn't agree completely with. Kinda reminds me of a bunch of lemmings.

In other words, you took a cheapshot at Tamino. Then, we he made a complete FOOL of you by offering precisely what you asked for, instead of having the decency to say "thanks very much", you dug an even deeper hole for yourself, with even more attempted sarcasm.

After all this, you then offer up this:
I am getting more and more annoyed at the rhetoric and hypocrisy of the AGW crowd.

You asked a question that you didn't want answered, then refused to even acknowledge that it was answered -- devastatingly so. You then followed that with self-serving rhetoric and hypocrisy, claiming to be "annoyed" at the "rhetoric and hypocrisy" of the AGW crowd.

Darren, if you want those of us who disagree with you to treat you with respect, then I don't think it's asking too much to ask you to show us the same respect. If you ask somebody to show their sources, then either a) acknowledge them when they do, or b) get a thicker skin when they name your "rhetoric and hypocrisy" for what it is. If you want to see somebody here modeling the behavior I'm asking you to display, check out the responses from "JP". He clearly disagrees with most of my positions. He also makes his case, listens to mine, and a genuine discussion follows. I suspect that when he occasionally makes a mistake, he admits it -- as I attempt to do from time to time.

If you want to have a discussion, then try turning off the "transmit" button and turn on the "receive" button from time to time. If you don't want to have a discussion, and you only want to dish out cheapshots, then climb off your high-horse about the "rhetoric and hypocrisy" of the other side.

You can't have it both ways.

Thor:
With all due respect, nearly 30 global warming epsisodes have occured over the past 5,000 years, 29 of which were without contributions by man burning fossil fuel. So yes Thor, you are right, it is not an either or proposition, it is over 90% natural with very little man influence. Remember Thor, reconstruction of past climate temperatures as done by most paleoclimatologists involves taking means and thus employing smoothing of the data, with data coming from ice cores, pollen, tree rings etc, and absolutely no instrument readings. On the otherhand, the data since 1900 is instrument data with no estimates from tree rings, ice cores etc.... because of actual precise readings instead of reconstruction smoothing, the spike in temperatures is greater than in climate resturation period. And remember, the spike only occurs during a 50-90 year period every 200 years or so, and therefore the current spike showed up dramatically because of no smoothing done by reconstruction. Therefore, it is impossible to say that it it a 50-50 proposition. But, it is accurate to say that man was not involved in the other 29 episodes, and thus CO2 can be discounted as the global warming agent.

Just a quick question BT. I am new to this blog site so could you fill me in concerning your statement, especially your second sentence...

The excerpt you quoted was from Darren, not me. Perhaps Darren will elaborate on his comment.

BrooklineTom:
You are right, it was a quote from Darren.

ok but why is global warming important?
do we really need it?
and why?