Cooling forecast comes true

crystal ball

NIWA, where are you?

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, is calculated from the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin.

In July last year three climate scientists published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research. “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” concluded that nature, not man, was responsible for “recent global warming.”

The paper, by John McClean, Chris DeFreitas and Bob Carter, shows that what the SOI does now, the temperature will do in between five and eight months’ time.

Simple. But does it work to predict global temperatures?

This is a preliminary report

Earlier this year, well-known civil engineer Bryan Leyland, of Auckland, became interested in finding out. He issued this graph which predicted temperatures in late 2010:

SOI forecast June 2010

Today, taking the latest known figures and estimating for the end of November, Bryan put together this composite image showing the cooling that has occurred since June:

SOI results December 2010

Bryan said today that he’s waiting with baited breath for the November results from Roy Spencer at UAH. He added: The world has started to cool. And it could be cool for the next seven months.”

Will this cooling kill 2010 as the hottest year?

Will the climate “establishment” notice there is a forecasting tool available? Will they deny that it works? Does it work?

28 Thoughts on “Cooling forecast comes true

  1. Mike Jowsey on December 2, 2010 at 9:22 am said:

    Seems to work better than NIWA’s historical temperature graph!

  2. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 11:19 am said:

    “Bryan said today that hes waiting with baited breath for the November results from Roy Spencer at UAH”

    Relax Bryan, AMSU mid-trop is only about 0.3C off record low and heading down. Still a bold prediction in June but it just shows how sensible trends can be determined relatively easily from historical metrics – and no need for a supercomputer!

    Vindication also for John McClean, Chris DeFreitas and Bob Carter. They deserve recognition for their work especially given the efforts to suppress and discredit it by Foster, Annan, Jones, Mann, Renwick, Salinger, Schmidt, Trenberth and the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH.

    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    O/T
    Chris Huhne, Climate Change and Energy Secretary, said a global insurance fund should be carefully studied as a way of providing funds.

    The insurance industry already gets climate change. It poses a unique risk to our environment and our economies and most businesses realise that inaction is not an option, he said.

    [If there is a prize for no-brainer/stating-the-obvious statements, Chris Huhne must be top qualifier]

  3. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 11:30 am said:

    Also, it seems appropriate that “Cancun” means “nest of serpents” in ancient Mayan language.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm said:

    “efforts to suppress”

    I’m experiencing suppression myself fight now by NZ Herald comments moderation.

    I must have attracted too many “Likes” because I am shut out of all comments in posts where I have commented previously and cannot comment on new articles.

    A recently submitted comment did not see the light of day so I can only assume that the moderator is a warmist.

    For the record, with your permission Richard T, these were recent replies.
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    “Lord Hunt: China needs to wean itself off Old King Coal”

    @ Forward Thinker (Auckland City)
    03:58PM Wednesday, 01 Dec 2010

    The science has moved on in regard to water vapour contrary to your statement, see “Water Vapor’s Counterintuitive Effect on Climate” (non-monotonic change with temperature)

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24079/

    “Water vapor and the dynamics of climate changes” Schneider, O’Gorman, Levine, 2009

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4410

    Sunspot cycles correlate with temperature better than irradiance

    Http:/www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature-2009.gif

    This plot shows how well the sunspot cumulative total works as a proxy for Ocean Heat Content and how the ocean absorbs and releases heat in accordance with sunspot cycles

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/ssa-sst-ssn.jpg

    Clouds and water vapour moderate climate by warming and cooling. For example, a reduction in long-term cloud cover (decreased albedo) allows the sun to heat the ocean, a long-term cloud cover increase (increased albedo) deflects solar radiation to space, so clouds therefore, are a driver of climate in response to solar/cosmic/magnetism activity.

    Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot shows oceans cooling

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    Global Ocean Heat Content plot shows OHC stalled and less than 2004

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    If the metrics proved AGW I wouldn’t deny it – but they don’t.
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    “Connie Hedegaard: Big nations must deliver on climate change pact”

    @ Gandalf (St Heliers)
    02:55PM Wednesday, 01 Dec 2010

    Correction

    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020”

    There are two competing theories for the recent global warming trend.

    The first is based on a theory which followed the warming trend that occurred between 1975 and 1998.

    The second theory is based on highly correlated data going back thousands of years.

    The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel and from land use is responsible for the resent temperature increase.

    The second theory is that the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind modulate the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

    The second explains global temperatures.

    The first does not
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    “Power plays threaten climate summit”

    @ By Brian Fallow
    5:30 AM Thursday Dec 2, 2010

    RIP COP ETS

  5. It’s getting cold for sure.

    Global Warming Meets Its Stalingrad Cold Of The Century

    The homeless are freezing to death, schools are closing, air traffic is paralyzed, flights cancelled, temperatures plummeting to -20C, winds up to 60 km/hr making windchill feel like -40C, autobahns and motorways are blocked by drifting snow, motorists stranded, trains are disrupted thats the ugly winter reality today in Germany. Weve been seeing similar headlines in the UK and throughout all of Scandinavia. Global warming has met its Stalingrad.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/01/global-warming-meets-its-stalingrad-cold-of-the-century/

  6. Chris Huhne is possibly one of the most dangerous men in Britain today. The guy is barking mad, and leading the country’s energy policy to ruin.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm said:

    “NIWA, where are you?”

    Here they are, except they can’t see the sun for the CO2.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Sun not CO2 the culprit

    DAVID IVORY

    July 19th 2010,

    Dr David Ivory is a Balclutha-based retired university teacher, scientist and senior United Nations staff member. His research interest has been in the general area of environmental (climatic) effects on biological processes.

    David Ivory argues the variation in energy received from the sun has a much greater effect on global temperature balance than the effect of greenhouse gases.

    [Snip]

    The greenhouse gas theory claims that increasing greenhouse gases restricts thermal energy out to the point that the energy balance is positively affected and therefore the earth warms.

    The greenhouse gas theory of global warming, however, is only a very recent proposition in earth time, relating to the period of time since the industrial revolution.

    It does not explain the reasons for the earth warming and cooling during the millennia of its existence.

    The alternative point of view held by a very large number of scientists is that the variation in energy received from the sun has a much greater effect on global temperature balance than the effect of greenhouse gases on energy loss and therefore it is the sun’s activity that has always dominantly controlled global warming and cooling.

    The scientific record shows clearly that over the past 3000 years there has been a more than 3degC change in global temperature, with both significant warming (in mediaeval times) and cooling (little ice age in 1700s) trends above and below present global temperatures.

    What is important is these global temperature changes closely follow radiation level changes and indeed have the highest correlation with temperature change.

    More importantly, since the end of the 1700s the earth has been in a general warming trend in response to increasing solar radiation.

    And with this warming trend the scientific record shows that glaciers have been steadily retreating and sea levels rising for the past 200-250 years.

    Thus it is important to realise these trends are not recent and started long before there was any significant burning of fossil fuels or increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

    However, the most damning evidence against greenhouse gas-induced global warming is the fact that there was a significant global cooling period between about 1940 and 1975 (associated with decreasing radiation levels) even though there was a three-fold increase in burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions during this period.

    This clearly demonstrates that global temperature was responding to changes in radiation levels and that rising levels of greenhouse gases were not causing global warming.

    The recent continuation of the general warming trend in the past 30 years, which is the period upon which the greenhouse gas theorists exclusively concentrate, is associated with further increases in solar radiation level.

    Of course, the greenhouse gas theorists claim this warming has been exclusively because of rising greenhouse gases during this period, but as the rates of glacier melting and sea rise continue as they have for the past 200 years, it can only be concluded that rising greenhouse gases are merely coincidental with the long-term warming trend, not the cause.

    Niwa announced that the average temperature of New Zealand in 2009 was cooler than the long-term average (i.e. cooler than more than 50% of the 100-plus years since temperature measurement started), with some places between 0.5degC and 1degC lower than average; that there was record cold weather in the last northern hemisphere winter; and that the area of winter Arctic ice increased for a third consecutive year.

    These are not coincidences.

    While it is too early to be certain of a trend change to lower solar radiation and therefore lower global temperature, the fact that the approximately 11-year solar cycle reached its lowest level in more than 50 years in 2009 may represent the beginning of a new global cooling period despite higher levels of greenhouse gases.

    If a second global cooling period occurs during a further period of increasing greenhouse gases, this will surely completely and finally discredit the theory of greenhouse gas-induced global warming.

    The bottom line is that there is no unequivocal scientific evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

    And therefore, this means that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is useless in reducing global temperatures and represents only an expensive venture in futility.

    The New Zealand Government would have been better off delaying the introduction of an ETS, as has the Australian Government, until the complexities of climate change are better understood.
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    Sunspots are a better correlation than simply radiation levels In my view but maybe that’s Davids point.with the 11-year solar cycle.

  8. Turing on December 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm said:

    Why did BL use an estimate for the end of November, why not wait for data then redo the figure then release it? The assertion that the work of McLean et al has been suppressed is ludicrous, the link between SOI and global temperatures has been well accepted by climatologist for a long time now, it was just some of their conclusion relating to AGW that were disputed. BL’s plot says a bit about variability on monthly to seasonal scales but says very very little about AGW.

  9. I bet the graph has been put together with out adding corrections.
    So much for the ETHICAL public servants we have employed in this country to advise our politicians.
    As for the politicians, remember we are the employers.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on December 2, 2010 at 10:16 pm said:

    “The assertion that the work of McLean et al has been suppressed is ludicrous”

    See:-

    How we were censored

    by Bob Carter and John McLean

    CENSORSHIP AT AGU: SCIENTISTS DENIED THE RIGHT OF REPLY

    by J. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter | March 29, 2010

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2010/11/climategate-a-year-old-and-still-going-strong/#comment-29823

    “BLs plot says a bit about variability on monthly to seasonal scales but says very very little about AGW.”

    But you can bet it wont be used as an AGW poster icon to advertise CO2-Temperature correlations.

    What McLean, de Freitas and Carter have shown is that an unpaid non-climatological person like Bryan Leyland can use their work in conjunction with historical metrics to make a successful short-term climate prediction that is beyond the capability of AGW-wired climate models and national climate specialists with a warm bias.

    The same has happened in Australia with CSIRO’s unfortunate SEACI study using climate models only to be completely outdone by one person – Ian Holtom using a similar method to Leyland.

    See:-

    WHAT IS THE MAIN FACTOR CONTROLLING THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN SYSTEM RAINFALL (SOUTH QLD-NEW SOUTH WALES-VICTORIA & SOUTH AUSTRALIA AREAS)?

    Rainfall in the vast Murray Darling Basin Area of South QLD/ New South Wales/ Victoria and South Australia, and (1) Carbon Dioxide Concentrations (CO2), (2) Sunspot Numbers, and, (3) The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model

    Ian Holton, Holton Weather Forecasting Pty Ltd: Friday 5th March 2010

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/solar/#comment-29952

  11. val majkus on December 2, 2010 at 10:19 pm said:

    I’m afraid our Govt is very keen to introduce a carbon tax even though it’s not in step with what’s currently happening in the world but then we’re isolated. I understand in Europe climate change is being blamed by the warmists for the freezing start to winter and people there are asking when this warming cooling is going to stop

  12. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 12:25 am said:

    Have managed to send this message to the NZ Herald Online Editors.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    To: Online Editors

    I am curious as to why I am no longer able to submit comments but had been free to do do so until recently.

    My username is “nonentity” with the same email as above.

    Without knowing the real reason I can only assume that there is an active policy to stifle a dissenting view on the contentious issue of climate change.

    I have supported my comments with scientific evidence when challenged so I cannot see why I should be shut out of all NZ Herald discussion except that I was attracting too many “Likes” for editorial comfort.

    Being in opposition to the notion of man-made climate change means I get my share of flak from proponents but I do not expect censorship from NZ Herald on account of it. However I cannot rule out the possibility given the zeal expressed in favour of it, not just in comments but also in NZ Herald articles with no alternative hypotheses to AGW being presented.

    I note that my access ceased immediately after I presented in comments, a scientifically sound alternative to the AGW hypothesis.

    I am hopeful that there is a benign reason for my exclusion from NZ Herald and that my paranoia is unjustified.

    Richard Cumming.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 2:48 pm said:

    By searching Google images for: sunspots temperature SOI, I found pages of plots well worth browsing. Includes:-

    * Bryan Leyland’s extended plot of that in the post above with the note “If solar effects such as sunspots drive the climate, 2010 will be the beginning of a long-term cooling trend”

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/soi/mclean-soi-shift-2010.jpg

    * Combinations of PDO, AMO and SOI that best match temp variations not explained by IPCC models.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/IPCC-17-model-20th-Century-vs-HadCRUT3-residuals-vs-PDO-AMO-SOI-fit-large.jpg

    Also search: sunspot cycle length temperature

    * Sunspot cycle length, temperature anomaly, CO2 concentration

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Nutshell_files/image040.jpg

    Obviously in that plot, CO2 is not a candidate to explain the 1940s warming.

    Search:sunspot number sea surface temperature

    * Sunspot number, global mean SST

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Nutshell_files/image043.jpg

    Search: arctic solar irradiance temperature

    * Solar activity, Arctic air temperature, world hydrocarbon use (gas, oil, coal)

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

    The last plot makes a complete mockery of any claimed fossil fuel use – global warming correlation because AGW is supposed to warm the Arctic predominately..Clearly, there is nil carbon/temperature correlation in the Arctic; solar activity correlates perfectly however.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 4:32 pm said:

    Arctic Cooling /Warming Due To Ocean Oscillations (PDO + AMO Index) versus CO2 Levels

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5f34862970b-800wi

    And the winner is?

  15. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm said:

    UAH Tropics Temps Modeled on Nino 3.4, AMO and CO2 where CO2 = 0.21 LN (CO2 ppm)

    http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1889/uahtropicsmodeloct10.png

  16. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 7:49 pm said:

    The NZ Herald Online Editors must have got my message because I now have access to comments restored.

    To date have had no communication from them stating the reason for my exclusion.

  17. Piers Corbyn reckons it could become one of the coldest winters for 100 years in Europe

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPooN0DZ5Y&feature=player_embedded#

    Remember, Corbyn got banned from placing bets on the weather by William Hill, because he got it right too often.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm said:

    Tropical cloud cover – Global surface air temperatrure

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/isccp-temp.jpg

  19. Richard C (NZ) on December 3, 2010 at 11:51 pm said:

    The SOI was used by John L. Daly (22 Nov 1998) to make a successful prediction.

    Remember the comments in the Climategate emails when John Daly died
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    And now to prediction

    Based on the the assumption that the Southern Oscillation is the primary driver of year-to-year global temperature, with a 6 to 9 month lag time, we can now predict that since the SOI has now gone sharply into La Nia mode in the last 6 months, global temperature will follow (with the predicted time lag) and fall to below the zero line (the long term average of temperature) in the next few months. The latest monthly value for temperature was +0.33C in October 1998, after reaching a peak of +0.72C in April. Since the SOI moved into La Nia mode in June, we can expect global temperature to fall below the zero line by March 1999.

    John L. Daly (22 Nov 1998)

    Update: 20th March 2000

    Since writing the above article over 15 months ago, global temperature did indeed fall below the long-term average by March 1999. Since then, the earth has continued in La Nia mode with consequent below-average temperatures as measured by the satellites. Temperature continues to closely track the SOI with a time lag.

    For the latest version of the comparison chart, click here – John L. Daly

    http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    The article preceding the prediction is a good read

    El Nio and Global Temperature

    Southern Oscillation Index (S.O.I.) effect on temperature.

    [Snip]

    A more interesting question then arises as to what `causes the cycles in the Southern Oscillation. We know it results from gargantuan changes in ocean currents and in deep water upwelling in the eastern Pacific, but as to what triggers this response is still an unknown. The answer may well lie in long-term solar changes. The Greenhouse industry readily blames greenhouse gases, but the idea that a few parts per million of CO2 can cause the overturning of trillions of megatonnes of sea water is fanciful to say the least, a reasoning based more on ideology than on science. Those who point to greenhouse gases as the `cause of El Nio fail to describe exactly what mechanism they imagine the gases to be performing to achieve such a feat.

    [Snip]

    “solar changes” in that paragraph is linked to this page

    SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

    by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

  20. Richard C (NZ) on December 4, 2010 at 12:07 am said:

    4. Cosmic Radiation, Solar Wind, and Global Cloud Coverage

    The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the suns activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmospheres CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]

    Continues…………….

    From

    SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

    by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

  21. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2010 at 9:11 pm said:

    No matter how many times I submit this correction, someone at NZ Herald Online edits out the word “drop”
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Correction
    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Am now trying this approach
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    @Moderation

    Correction
    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″

    Please stop editing out the word “drop”

  22. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2010 at 10:57 pm said:

    Re NZ Herald Online editing out the word “drop” in my sequence of comments

    The first comment editing occurred on this page

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=3

    The second here

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=4

    The third here

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=6

    It remains to be seen if the third correction addressed to @Moderation sees the light of day.

  23. val majkus on December 8, 2010 at 11:46 pm said:

    Weird Richard! That’s more blatant editing than I’ve ever had!

  24. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 8:47 am said:

    Weird and disturbing, I’m glad you’ve seen it.

    At first I thought I’d made a typo until I realized I’d cut n pasted (plagiarized) from the original text so it had to have been edited.

    I’m also documenting the saga in a “Scaremongering” thread at Kiwiblog in the hope that someone is watching.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/12/scare-mongering.html#comment-772153

    No-one has commented so far. Flipper frequents that blog (mostly political I think), he comments here sometimes.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2010 at 7:18 pm said:

    This might be progress – but still weird
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Nonentity (Mt Maunganui)
    09:55AM Thursday, 09 Dec 2010

    @Moderation

    Correction.
    “translates to a global temperature of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020”

    Please stop editing out the word “drop” from this correction.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Think I will leave it at that – it might be some auto-correct thing in the software.

  26. Might be a problem with the word “drop”

    Reminds me of the classic database geeks cartoon

    http://xkcd.com/327/

  27. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Call a monkey

  28. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » More proof global temps lag SOI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation