David Dilley predicts strongest El Niño in 10 Years
David Dilley, who is a climate researcher with Global Weather Oscillations and firm believer that the moon will bring about global cooling, predicts that the El Niño this year will be the strongest one seen in the past decade.
Meteorologist and climate researcher David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations Inc. (GWO) says a recurring gravitational cycle called the “Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for climate”, will act like a magnet and cause the South Pacific high pressure center to be pulled out of its normal location in October and November, setting the stage for a moderate to strong El Nio to form in December.
(…)
Mr. Dilley says the PFM gravitational cycle that controls the formation of an El Nio peaks approximately every 4 years, and it will again peak during this September into January. As this occurs, the tropical South Pacific Ocean and atmospheric winds will respond rapidly and cause the formation of a moderate to strong El Nio by Christmas. This will likely be the strongest El Nio in over 10 years, and cause disruptions in weather patterns during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere, and summer months in the Southern hemisphere.
The technology used in forecasting the upcoming El Nio is the same used for predicting the natural cycles of global warming and cooling. PFM gravitational cycles pull the atmosphere’s high pressure systems northward or southward by as much as 3 or 5 degrees of latitude from their normal seasonal positions.
These cycles correspond nearly 100 percent with the last 24 moderate to strong El Nio occurrences since 1914, and with global warming cycles that recur approximate every 230 years, and mega global warming cycles that occur every 116,000 years. Additional information on the El Nio and the peer reviewed computer e-Book “Global Warming – Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found” is available at http://www.globalweathercycles.com.
When it refers to “El Nio” in this article, it’s the exact same as El Niño as far as I can tell.
Amongst many other things Mr. Dilley claims in his press releases is that the PFM gravitational cycle that controls the formation of an El Nino peaks approximately every 4 years.
If I’m interpreting what he says rightly that means that El Ninos should occur every four years; if that were the case this 4yr periodicity would have been easily noticed and commented on by others (and used to predict future El Ninos) by now; it hasn’t for a good reason.
Recent El Ninos have occurred in: 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1994-1995, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.
Only two of those seven can be described as four years apart.
If you look at El Nino dates for the 20th century the four-year cycle looks even shakier, unless you allow very, very generous leeway (up to 9 years!) either side. 1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 1997-1998.
As for recurring lunar gravitational cycles, hmm. You try Googling it, no one else seems to use this term; it’s sufficiently vague as to mean anything or nothing. I’d like to see this hypothesis and its evidence discussed by some astronomical and metrological journals. History is littered with people claiming to come up with grand unifying theories that explain this that and everything. They always fall apart under scrutiny. As well as forecasting El Ninos Mr Dilley also claims to be able to predict the tracks that hurricanes will take; all this and ‘new’ explanations for ice ages and global warming too, all in a 60 page booklet. He’s also forecasting an El Nino – which releases heat from the ocean with a simultaneous cooling of the earth. Yeah right.
There may or may not be an El Nino in December – all forecasters currently work on are changes to Pacific temperatures, as recorded by an array of sensors spread across the Pacific. At present conditions are described as neutral. To be credible Dilley needs to successfully predict, say, the next ten El Ninos. And past experience shows El Ninos don’t occur every four years; and La Nina’s (the cool side of the ENSO cycle) are much rarer than El Ninos and occur less frequently.
Based on the above and the fact that his website contains no argument or data I really have no interest in spending money on his little booklet. If this work were truly ground-breaking he’d be eager to share it freely with the world and open it up to proper scrutiny.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to call someone a “researcher” if he’s not doing any academic scientific research. Global Weather Oscillations is his own company and he is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist.
He peer reviewed the book with 4 meteorologists he picked himself. I would call them co-authors… that’s not a peer reviewed book in terms of science at all.
I wouldn’t pay $ 9.99 for some utterly non-scientific book published by a company in which the author is the owner.
Tuukka, you claim that the book is “non-scientific”. Picking his reviewers does not, in itself, make the book’s thesis “non-scientific”. And your ad hominem statement about Mr. Dilley because “he is a meterologist” makes me wonder what Einstein’s detractors were saying of him because “he is just a Patent clerk.” These are your opinions, of course, and one you’re entitled to them. Could you provide specific examples of how Mr. Dilley is not following the Scientific Method ?
Tim… I wish the IPCC would follow your very good and scientific suggestion : “To be credible Dilley needs to successfully predict, say, the next ten El Ninos”. How have the IPCC climate models faired to this this type of testing?
Tim Dennell said, “To be credible Dilley needs to successfully predict, say, the next ten El Ninos.”
I wish the same strict scrutiny was applied to the Global Warming predictors. Their predictions are based on no results whatsoever and yet are supposedly “beyond debate”. Such bias reveals the totally political, not scientific, nature of global warming. Among scientists there is no consensus and there is plenty of disagreement, which is the way it should be. The political factions of the environmental movement don’t want you to know that.