Recent U.S and NH Warmth- Positive AMO?

[blizzard1024]

The AMO continues to be positive. A positive AMO is an indication of a faster thermohaline circulation.  see 

 

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/drsg2006.pdf for a peer reviewed paper published in Ocean Dynamics.

 

Basically they found that it is a 44 year cycle of warmth and then cooling in the North Atlantic SSTs. See graph below. 

 

 

What I found interesting is that if you correlate the AMO to the U.S temperatures there is a strong positive correlation over much of the lower 48 states.

 

 

In fact, if you correlate it to NH temperatures, you find it has a warming influence that is more widespread than the PDO. See map below. I also put the PDO maps below as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This begs the question: since the AMO ramped up dramatically from the late 1970s and then leveled off from 1998 to present: does this explain a lot of a variance in the global temperatures?? I am not saying there is no effect from CO2 warming but just looking at this index and its correlations and you can easily see why we are in warm phase in the lower 48 states and perhaps the NH. If you include the whole globe, see graph below, you can see that the southern oceans are somewhat negatively correlated suggesting a stronger thermohaline circulation which pumps more heat into the north atlantic.

 

 

This also explains the record high antarctic sea ice concentration (albeit it a smaller record high than the more impressive record low in the arctic). The antarctica is thermally isolated because of the strong polar vortex down there so that positive correlation with the AMO is likely dubious in my opinion. The PDO globally shows the classic ENSO pattern.(above)

 

Physically, it looks like this to me, the AMO has been in a peak positive phase and hence the North Atlantic SSTs are warmer than normal. There was a dramatic warming in the North Atlantic seas since the late 1970s when the satellite records of sea ice began. Hence the waters that flow into the Arctic basin are warmer than they were in the late 1970s and hence the sea ice thickness is reduced through the years until it becomes susceptible to seasonal melt and very low summer minimums like we have seen lately. This makes winters warmer in the mid-latitudes on average. In fact, since the Arctic is the heat sink for the NH especially, a warmer arctic from the stronger thermohaline circulation could in fact describe why it has been warmer lately and also explains the leveling off the temperatures since 1998.

 

Once the AMO falls and associated thermohaline circulation slows...I expect global temperatures will drop some and we will see arctic sea ice recover. Now I am not saying that it will return to the cold of the early 1900s or even 1970s. There has been some CO2 warming. But natural cycles likely are dominating our climate now in the U.S and globally in my scientific opinion. That is what the data shows.

[Jonger]

1.  the link goes to "page not found".

 

2.  http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/

 

Works for me.

[blizzard1024]

1.  the link goes to "page not found".

 

2.  http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/

The above is just a blog site. Not peer reviewed as you always like to say. In any event, the AMO is a natural oceanic cycle related to the strength of the thermohaline circulation. SSTs have risen a little globally and you can see this in the untrended data. BUT there is a natural cycle here with some modest warming superimposed. To say global warming has caused the AMO cycles is laughable. So that means global warming is the reason for more hurricanes in the 50s/60s and less in the 70s and 80s?? come on. this is junk science IMO. 

[WeatherRusty]

The above is just a blog site. Not peer reviewed as you always like to say. In any event, the AMO is a natural oceanic cycle related to the strength of the thermohaline circulation. SSTs have risen a little globally and you can see this in the untrended data. BUT there is a natural cycle here with some modest warming superimposed. To say global warming has caused the AMO cycles is laughable. So that means global warming is the reason for more hurricanes in the 50s/60s and less in the 70s and 80s?? come on. this is junk science IMO. 

 

Who claims the AMO cycle is caused by global warming? No one I am aware of. The global ocean is about 0.6C warmer than a century ago if memory serves me correctly. What that means is that a +AMO will be warmer than years ago and so will a -AMO.

[blizzard1024]

Who claims the AMO cycle is caused by global warming? No one I am aware of. The global ocean is about 0.6C warmer than a century ago if memory serves me correctly. What that means is that a +AMO will be warmer than years ago and so will a -AMO.

The blog site stated that global warming in manifesting itself with the positive AMO signature and that the AMO is not really an oscillation. They claim the AMO is an artifact of global warming.

I just disagree IMO. There is evidence that this is a manifestation of variations in the speed of thermohaline circulation which, based on paleoclimatic data, suggests varies. It explains the antiphase

temperature relationship between the Greenland ice core data and the Antarctic ice core data.   I do agree that we have some background warming superimposed on the AMO signature which I believe is the case you refer to. The same goes for ENSO. Maybe what we think are neutral ENSOs are actually slight La Nina's based on the warmer SSTs.   

[WestWind]

Seems to me like the data would need to be de-trended of the rise in global temperatures over the period in order to see a clear indication of any oscillation itself.

[blizzard1024]

great.  can you please post the citation so I can look it up?  thanks!

 

The link works for me...  here is another link to the abstract at least: 

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10236-005-0043-0?LI=true

 

there are a bunch of other references on the AMO being a real oscillation from peer reviewed real journals below. 

 

 

ima, Mihai, Gerrit Lohmann, 2007: A Hemispheric Mechanism for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. J. Climate, 20, 2706–2719.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4174.1

 

Wei Wei, Gerrit Lohmann. (2012) Simulated Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation during the Holocene. Journal of Climate25:20, 6989-7002

Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012.

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (5648 KB)

 

Marcia Glaze Wyatt, Sergey Kravtsov, Anastasios A. Tsonis. (2011) Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics

Online publication date: 13-Apr-2011.

CrossRef

 

 

Robert Oglesby, Song Feng, Qi Hu, Clinton Rowe. (2011) The role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on medieval drought in North America: Synthesizing results from proxy data and climate models. Global and Planetary Change

CrossRef

 

Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra. (2011) The role of Atlantic-Arctic exchange in North Atlantic multidecadal climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters

Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011.

CrossRef

 

Rym Msadek, Claude Frankignoul. (2009) Atlantic multidecadal oceanic variability and its influence on the atmosphere in a climate model. Climate Dynamics 33:1, 45-62

Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009.

CrossRef

[blizzard1024]

Seems to me like the data would need to be de-trended of the rise in global temperatures over the period in order to see a clear indication of any oscillation itself.

It has been detrended. That is what the graph shows. see below for trended vs untrended.

 

 

[toronto blizzard]

1.  the link goes to "page not found".

 

2.  http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/

You posting a lot of BS!

[Mallow]

It has been detrended. That is what the graph shows. see below for trended vs untrended.

 

Why is removing a linear trend the best way to calculate the AMO? As noted, there will be serious aliasing issues if the actual trend isn't linear.

[blizzard1024]

first, the discussion under the post has links to peer-reviewed literature which support the points in the essay.

 

 

no it doesn't.  this is what he wrote:

 

Obviously they’re strongly correlated. Bob Tisdale (and others) simply can’t wrap their brains around the fact that global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the changes in N.Atl SST anomaly. Therefore global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the variation in the AMO  (emphasis in original)

 

he's not saying that the AMO is created by AGW, nor is he saying that AMO Is not an oscillation.   why are you misrepresenting what I linked to.

"that global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the changes in N.Atl SST anomaly. Therefore global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the variation in the AMO".

 

That is how I read it. Global warming is the cause of the much of the AMO variation. Clearly stated in what you quoted. I disagree with this assertion. There is physical evidence in the peer reviewed literature that the AMO is related to the speed of the thermohaline circulation. You can believe it if you want. You could believe what your blog says. Nothing is concrete in any of this.

[Bozart]

Aren't you directly employed by the climate change industry? Selling insurance or something very tainted... Refresh my memory, you mentioned this once and I remember your comments influence.

 

Post more "articles" from fracking lobbyists.

 

That'll teach him.

[skierinvermont]

It has been detrended. That is what the graph shows. see below for trended vs untrended.

 

Instead of linearly detrending, how about detrending the same way the PDO is detrended. By removing the Global SST anomaly, which is not linear. What's good enough for the PDO ought to be good enough for the AMO.

[csnavywx]

"that global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the changes in N.Atl SST anomaly. Therefore global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the variation in the AMO".

 

That is how I read it. Global warming is the cause of the much of the AMO variation. Clearly stated in what you quoted. I disagree with this assertion. There is physical evidence in the peer reviewed literature that the AMO is related to the speed of the thermohaline circulation. You can believe it if you want. You could believe what your blog says. Nothing is concrete in any of this.

Two problems with your assertion. First is that that it violates Granger causality. AMO changes appear to actually LAG temperature changes.  They almost certainly don't lead them. That's a pretty damning fault. Second is that the definition of the AMO itself (which is just linearly detrended SST) leaves it open to aliasing effects from AGW. This doesn't mean that the varability didn't occur in the past, isn't occuring in the present, or won't in the future, but it does mean that the data is open to contamination from AGW (which isn't spatially uniform in any manner). This spears the assertion that the recent change in the AMO index is solely responsible for the changes in NH temperature and precip. It's the underlying GW signal that's mostly responsible.

 

Lastly, where are the physics? I find none of the ocean cycle arguments provide an intellectually satisfactory explanation via a physics-based approach. At least the PDO is more coherent and usable than the AMO (wrt its definition).

[Snow_Miser]

The link works for me...  here is another link to the abstract at least: 

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10236-005-0043-0?LI=true

 

there are a bunch of other references on the AMO being a real oscillation from peer reviewed real journals below. 

 

 

ima, Mihai, Gerrit Lohmann, 2007: A Hemispheric Mechanism for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. J. Climate, 20, 2706–2719.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4174.1

 

Wei Wei, Gerrit Lohmann. (2012) Simulated Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation during the Holocene. Journal of Climate25:20, 6989-7002

Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012.

Abstract . Full Text . PDF (5648 KB)

 

Marcia Glaze Wyatt, Sergey Kravtsov, Anastasios A. Tsonis. (2011) Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics

Online publication date: 13-Apr-2011.

CrossRef

 

 

Robert Oglesby, Song Feng, Qi Hu, Clinton Rowe. (2011) The role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on medieval drought in North America: Synthesizing results from proxy data and climate models. Global and Planetary Change

CrossRef

 

Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra. (2011) The role of Atlantic-Arctic exchange in North Atlantic multidecadal climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters

Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011.

CrossRef

 

Rym Msadek, Claude Frankignoul. (2009) Atlantic multidecadal oceanic variability and its influence on the atmosphere in a climate model. Climate Dynamics 33:1, 45-62

Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009.

CrossRef

 

Bump for Frivolousz.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Two problems with your assertion. First is that that it violates Granger causality. AMO changes appear to actually LAG temperature changes.  They almost certainly don't lead them. That's a pretty damning fault. Second is that the definition of the AMO itself (which is just linearly detrended SST) leaves it open to aliasing effects from AGW. This doesn't mean that the varability didn't occur in the past, isn't occuring in the present, or won't in the future, but it does mean that the data is open to contamination from AGW (which isn't spatially uniform in any manner). This spears the assertion that the recent change in the AMO index is solely responsible for the changes in NH temperature and precip. It's the underlying GW signal that's mostly responsible.

 

Lastly, where are the physics? I find none of the ocean cycle arguments provide an intellectually satisfactory explanation via a physics-based approach. At least the PDO is more coherent and usable than the AMO (wrt its definition).

 

 

The holes are damming.  We are dealing with the hypothetical here.  This is a far cry from physically sound science.

[ORH_wxman]

The holes are damming.  We are dealing with the hypothetical here.  This is a far cry from physically sound science.

 

You still haven't read up on the thermohaline circulation and the AMOC...when you actually do, you can get back to your claims as to how there is no physical connection. Of course the AMO has lagged global temps in the 20th century since it is slightly out of phase with the PDO and the PDO is a larger influence. It hasn't always been that way going further back though. Regardless if there is a AGW contamination recently (on some versions of the AMO), it is still an internal oscillation from all the evidence that exists currently.

[The_Global_Warmer]

you're still using causation to back the idea of the AMO.  The mechanism of action has not been proven nor observed.  The currents are proven.  But we have no proof of any heat movements.  It's still a theory based off of Surface SSTs.  That is extremely

 

To prove the AMO exists.  One will have to track the OHC throughout the Atlantic.  We should be able to physically detect any trends on OHC changes through the currents.  Which may or may not show an actually heat exchange exists like the AMO would depict. 

[tacoman25]

you're still using causation to back the idea of the AMO.  The mechanism of action has not been proven nor observed.  The currents are proven.  But we have no proof of any heat movements.  It's still a theory based off of Surface SSTs.  That is extremely

 

To prove the AMO exists.  One will have to track the OHC throughout the Atlantic.  We should be able to physically detect any trends on OHC changes through the currents.  Which may or may not show an actually heat exchange exists like the AMO would depict. 

 

So why do you believe in the PDO but not the AMO? I still haven't seen you answer this. And I don't see you demanding OHC numbers throughout the Pacific to prove the PDO exists.

[Snow_Miser]

Frivolousz, please show what is wrong in all of the research that Blizzard posted. Please provide just one paper to support what you are trying to argue.

 

Thanks.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Everyone, please post physical evidence for the AMO?  Can't?

 

 

 

Let's get real. You are selling an HYPOTHESIS and passing it off as fact. 

 

Not only do you guys pass it off as fact you make up arbitrary percentages based on this being a fact.  Y

 

Yet you have no physical proof.

Can't stress enough of the no proof part.

 

Why not ask the red taggers who question it instead of me. 

 

 

My final answer is there is no physical evidence.  FINAL ANSWER.

[LakeEffectKing]

Everyone, please post physical evidence for the AMO?  Can't?

 

 

 

Let's get real. You are selling an HYPOTHESIS and passing it off as fact. 

 

Not only do you guys pass it off as fact you make up arbitrary percentages based on this being a fact.  Y

 

Yet you have no physical proof.

Can't stress enough of the no proof part.

 

Why not ask the red taggers who question it instead of me. 

 

 

My final answer is there is no physical evidence.  FINAL ANSWER.

 

PUFF, PUFF, PASS!!

[Jonger]

Everyone, please post physical evidence for the AMO?  Can't?

 

 

 

Let's get real. You are selling an HYPOTHESIS and passing it off as fact. 

 

Not only do you guys pass it off as fact you make up arbitrary percentages based on this being a fact.  Y

 

Yet you have no physical proof.

Can't stress enough of the no proof part.

 

Why not ask the red taggers who question it instead of me. 

 

 

My final answer is there is no physical evidence.  FINAL ANSWER.

So you believe its just warming and cooling in a perfect sine wave going back a hundred years? Just good timing on those cooling and warming patterns?

The AMO isn't convenient to warmers, so you discredit it..... Anything can be discredited using your logic.

[SVT450R]

Everyone, please post physical evidence for the AMO?  Can't?

 

 

 

Let's get real. You are selling an HYPOTHESIS and passing it off as fact. 

 

Not only do you guys pass it off as fact you make up arbitrary percentages based on this being a fact.  Y

 

Yet you have no physical proof.

Can't stress enough of the no proof part.

 

Why not ask the red taggers who question it instead of me. 

 

 

My final answer is there is no physical evidence.  FINAL ANSWER.

[blizzard1024]

Everyone, please post physical evidence for the AMO?  Can't?

 

 

 

Let's get real. You are selling an HYPOTHESIS and passing it off as fact. 

 

Not only do you guys pass it off as fact you make up arbitrary percentages based on this being a fact.  Y

 

Yet you have no physical proof.

Can't stress enough of the no proof part.

 

Why not ask the red taggers who question it instead of me. 

 

 

My final answer is there is no physical evidence.  FINAL ANSWER.

 

Here is a paper that shows the AMO in proxy data before increased GHGs. 

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html

 

If you are irritated by the posts then stay out of here. Let people with cooler

heads (no pun intended) debate this stuff. Your use of all CAPs is classic. 

If you are that annoyed just leave. we won't miss your attitude. 

[Snow_Miser]

Here is a paper that shows the AMO in proxy data before increased GHGs. 

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html

 

If you are irritated by the posts then stay out of here. Let people with cooler

heads (no pun intended) debate this stuff. Your use of all CAPs is classic. 

If you are that annoyed just leave. we won't miss your attitude. 

 

Frivolous ignored all of the papers that you posted and continues to live on his own island.

 

I guess there are two types of deniers then.

[rygar]

Frivolous ignored all of the papers that you posted and continues to live on his own island.

 

I guess there are two types of deniers then.

 

Pretty classic

[Snow_Miser]

Pretty classic

 

Frivolous is denying all of this research. Pretty amazing actually.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22atlantic+multidecadal+oscillation%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp=

[Snow_Miser]

You mean like doomsday AGW?

 

Even including any effects from natural variability over the last 30 years, hindcasts have still simulated far too much warming. Without natural variability, the observed trends would be even lower.

 

[Isotherm]

Even including any effects from natural variability over the last 30 years, hindcasts have still simulated far too much warming. Without natural variability, the observed trends would be even lower.

 

Satellite temp trends.png

 

 

 

Yep. I wish we had access to some of the NOAA reanalysis sites right now, but the AMO variation over time (SSTA change) is clear as day.