Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,515
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    chrislittlenews
    Newest Member
    chrislittlenews
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
raindancewx

Has the AMO Flipped Phases?

Recommended Posts

Has an extended AMO cold phase started?

cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png

Here is a look at the past four months. The cold ring is ever-present. I think the cold ring in July is maybe the most cold it has been since 1994, possible exception of 2002.

AMO looks fairly similar to 1986 by the way, to give a recent solar minimum, cold-AMO ring, developing El Nino year.

80A2m84.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the high water vapor is more of a lag from the prior warmth, we were at +0.7C for SSTs in the 2015-16 El Nino against 2017-18. My thing is that eventually gets transported to the driest areas of the Earth - the deserts of the SW US, the Sahara, the Gobi, etc, and the arctic/antarctic. Eventually, the deserts/cold areas eat the moisture alive, transform it into snow and ice in the winter, which then begins to dissipate the heat by reflecting out more light and making rivers/lakes, etc colder. It seems fairly likely that you get some kind of volcanic response too if there is less weight from ice and snow by the mountains from the heat, which also corrects the heat.

I'm increasingly skeptical that 2012 will be beaten anytime soon in the Arctic, the CFS/Canadian keep sustaining the cool AMO ring longer in each subsequent run, and we remain due for a major volcanic eruption in the tropics, they are supposed to happen every 20-30 years, and the last was Pinatubo in 1991. The volcanoes waking up now, coincidence or not are similar to those that woke up around the 1963 warm to cold AMO flip, which is why I was so interested in Agung last year.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking for my area, during the Monsoon season we tend to get relatively frequent "cold" snaps when the AMO is positive in Summer, i.e. highs in the 70s/low 80s instead of 90s. This year, we've had an alternation between mild/wet and warm dry, which is more consistent with the "warm" snaps in the Monsoon season during the negative AMO in Summer, which I find interesting. Super El Nino or not in 2015, August was incredibly hot here that year with the AMO relatively cool. 

Heat in September seems to be especially severe in the SW during AMO+, high solar years - look at September in the 1950s out here relative to the past 30 years. Will be very interesting to see if we get a number of cold Septembers with the AMO colder and very low solar activity for the next two to three years. 

Should be very interesting seeing what the July AMO number is. Really think -0.000 to -0.100 is possible, although I'd wager up to +0.05 or +0.1 is possible too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the post 1994 warm AMO era, the AMO reading for July was the coldest since 2002. Only 1996 & 2002 were colder.

                Jan          Feb            Mar          Apr          May           Jun           Jul             Aug         Sept          Oct           Nov            Dec

 2016    0.231    0.156    0.188    0.177    0.344    0.409    0.432    0.457    0.458    0.380    0.390    0.335
 2017    0.225    0.227    0.167    0.283    0.314    0.308    0.302    0.310    0.350    0.433    0.352    0.364
 2018    0.173    0.062    0.132    0.064   -0.001   -0.011    0.018  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMO should be due for a flip in several years. Nature moving early (or late) should never surprise us if it happens. I was expecting the PDO to flip and establish first. About 10 years ago -PDO formed but then flipped back positive for a few years. Perhaps the real -PDO will show up in a couple years. I assume not the next several months if El Nino verifies. AMO could also make a couple tries before really flipping. Previous cycle of both, PDO lead. Before that time they were a little more in tandem. We will see if they both go negative in a few years, or if it goes -PDO first then -AMO. Coldest periods are when both are negative (average multi-year stats).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw - the AMO does follow a multidecadal oscillatory behavior ...to which is typically 20 to 30 years in length.  The graphs have been published/are accessible on-line and are old hat; it should be very easy to dig those out of wiki and what not.

But, the solar cycle and the AMO do show a reasonably well correlated coefficients, and such that cycle 23 and 24 are unusual strong minimum may lend some to the -AMO idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that there is a long-term sixty year cycle, or even a 120 year cycle. In the 60 year cycle, each of these lasts 10-20 years. In the 120 year cycle, that is true, but the magnitude of the sign for each ocean is much greater or weaker. So the AMO+/PDO- sign in the 1950s may have been more amplified given all the NE US hurricanes for instance, relative to 2011/2012 which only had Sandy and Isabel. The late 1950s, like now, were volatile for the two signs, first with the brief late 1950s PDO spike, and then the rapid AMO collapse in 1963...after Agung erupted. Which happened last year...and around the AMO flip in the 1840s too.

AMO+/PDO+

AMO+/PDO-

AMO-/PDO+

AMO-/PDO-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a look at August while we wait on the ESRL AMO figure for the month. July was +0.018. So August probably a bit warmer, even though the S. Atlantic is colder. 

57bBrAF.png

1994, 1994, 2002, 2006 is a decent look for the AMO in Aug 2018. Everything else is pretty different though.

X6GkZPB.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August AMO came in warmer, but still pretty cold for the post 1994 warm AMO era. Only five Augusts colder since 1994. I generally treat +0.1 as "warm" for the AMO, and -0.1 as "cool" for the AMO, so still essentially neutral. June-August was coldest since 2002, and only warmer than 1996,1997,2002 in the post 1994 warm AMO era.

 1994   -0.295   -0.308   -0.278   -0.199   -0.206   -0.221   -0.231   -0.235   -0.152   -0.059   -0.019   -0.090
 1995   -0.062   -0.040    0.016    0.076    0.272    0.364    0.314    0.183    0.054    0.102    0.127    0.042
 1996   -0.010   -0.032   -0.058    0.009   -0.065   -0.124   -0.105   -0.008   -0.002   -0.145   -0.174   -0.155
 1997   -0.091   -0.036    0.005    0.007    0.040    0.008    0.060    0.015    0.109    0.150    0.051    0.131
 1998    0.130    0.291    0.322    0.291    0.383    0.489    0.487    0.512    0.412    0.382    0.317    0.279
 1999    0.051    0.057    0.069    0.052    0.162    0.180    0.198    0.307    0.185    0.017   -0.049    0.014
 2000   -0.084   -0.038    0.103    0.042    0.105   -0.018    0.072    0.103    0.101   -0.040   -0.053   -0.127
 2001   -0.128   -0.027    0.014   -0.012   -0.009    0.198    0.135    0.177    0.286    0.251    0.156    0.213
 2002    0.181    0.165    0.145    0.027   -0.048   -0.117   -0.066    0.106    0.080    0.111    0.019    0.004
 2003    0.050   -0.013    0.112    0.079    0.151    0.205    0.276    0.415    0.452    0.426    0.223    0.224
 2004    0.210    0.209    0.158    0.108    0.006    0.177    0.228    0.317    0.240    0.242    0.221    0.187
 2005    0.111    0.125    0.284    0.292    0.293    0.327    0.447    0.440    0.419    0.238    0.140    0.216
 2006    0.123    0.075    0.060    0.197    0.308    0.333    0.374    0.401    0.364    0.334    0.289    0.171
 2007    0.171    0.217    0.127    0.159    0.112    0.088    0.129    0.055    0.098    0.158    0.176    0.111
 2008    0.030    0.128    0.159    0.043    0.172    0.256    0.206    0.175    0.199    0.103    0.001    0.019
 2009   -0.059   -0.164   -0.160   -0.130   -0.061    0.122    0.228    0.153    0.057    0.165    0.069    0.083
 2010    0.040    0.177    0.287    0.426    0.460    0.448    0.450    0.526    0.449    0.324    0.236    0.208
 2011    0.144    0.108    0.055    0.092    0.152    0.178    0.092    0.147    0.144    0.063   -0.070   -0.045
 2012   -0.065    0.004    0.026    0.080    0.164    0.300    0.375    0.431    0.448    0.329    0.165    0.141
 2013    0.128    0.115    0.158    0.136    0.101    0.046    0.190    0.194    0.255    0.347    0.128    0.036
 2014   -0.062   -0.043   -0.081   -0.094   -0.002    0.062    0.222    0.335    0.310    0.292    0.065    0.058
 2015   -0.008   -0.004   -0.129   -0.072    0.045    0.029    0.132    0.178    0.300    0.324    0.186    0.229
 2016    0.231    0.155    0.188    0.177    0.344    0.409    0.432    0.456    0.458    0.380    0.390    0.335
 2017    0.225    0.227    0.167    0.283    0.314    0.308    0.302    0.310    0.350    0.433    0.352    0.364
 2018    0.173    0.062    0.132    0.063   -0.001   -0.011    0.017    0.112  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the ESRL site, it does look like the AMO values are lowest since 2000-01 for the NDJ period. I generally think of the AMO as +/-, but you have "rising/falling' w/in each positive/negative cycle before a brief flat plateau at the top/bottom of the overall 60-70 year cycle. I think we're in the falling part of the warm cycle now. 1975-2005, rising, 2006-2012, plateau, 2013-falling? Sea Ice extent being relatively high in the Arctic despite incredible warmth in Alaska is kind of consistent with the colder AMO, given how low the extent got in Sept 2018. A bottom in 1974 and then again in 2043 would be consistent with the idea of a 70 year AMO cycle.

 1994   -0.295   -0.308   -0.278   -0.199   -0.206   -0.221   -0.231   -0.235   -0.152   -0.059   -0.019   -0.090
 1995   -0.062   -0.040    0.016    0.076    0.271    0.364    0.314    0.183    0.054    0.102    0.127    0.042
 1996   -0.010   -0.032   -0.058    0.009   -0.065   -0.124   -0.105   -0.009   -0.002   -0.145   -0.174   -0.155
 1997   -0.092   -0.036    0.005    0.007    0.039    0.008    0.060    0.015    0.109    0.150    0.051    0.131
 1998    0.130    0.291    0.321    0.291    0.383    0.489    0.487    0.512    0.412    0.381    0.317    0.279
 1999    0.050    0.057    0.069    0.052    0.162    0.180    0.198    0.306    0.184    0.017   -0.049    0.014
 2000   -0.084   -0.039    0.103    0.042    0.105   -0.018    0.072    0.102    0.101   -0.040   -0.053   -0.127
 2001   -0.128   -0.027    0.014   -0.012   -0.009    0.198    0.135    0.177    0.286    0.251    0.156    0.213
 2002    0.181    0.165    0.144    0.027   -0.049   -0.117   -0.066    0.106    0.079    0.111    0.019    0.004
 2003    0.050   -0.013    0.112    0.079    0.151    0.205    0.276    0.415    0.451    0.426    0.223    0.224
 2004    0.210    0.209    0.158    0.108    0.006    0.177    0.227    0.316    0.240    0.242    0.221    0.187
 2005    0.110    0.125    0.284    0.292    0.293    0.327    0.446    0.440    0.418    0.238    0.140    0.216
 2006    0.123    0.075    0.060    0.197    0.308    0.333    0.374    0.401    0.364    0.334    0.289    0.171
 2007    0.171    0.217    0.127    0.159    0.111    0.088    0.129    0.055    0.098    0.158    0.176    0.111
 2008    0.030    0.128    0.158    0.043    0.172    0.256    0.206    0.175    0.198    0.102    0.001    0.019
 2009   -0.059   -0.164   -0.160   -0.131   -0.061    0.121    0.228    0.153    0.057    0.164    0.069    0.082
 2010    0.040    0.177    0.287    0.426    0.459    0.447    0.450    0.525    0.449    0.324    0.235    0.208
 2011    0.144    0.108    0.055    0.092    0.152    0.178    0.092    0.147    0.144    0.063   -0.071   -0.045
 2012   -0.065    0.004    0.026    0.080    0.164    0.300    0.375    0.431    0.448    0.329    0.165    0.141
 2013    0.128    0.115    0.158    0.136    0.101    0.046    0.190    0.194    0.255    0.347    0.128    0.036
 2014   -0.062   -0.043   -0.081   -0.094   -0.002    0.062    0.221    0.335    0.310    0.292    0.065    0.058
 2015   -0.008   -0.004   -0.129   -0.072    0.044    0.029    0.132    0.178    0.300    0.324    0.186    0.229
 2016    0.230    0.155    0.188    0.177    0.344    0.409    0.431    0.456    0.457    0.380    0.390    0.335
 2017    0.225    0.226    0.167    0.282    0.314    0.308    0.302    0.309    0.350    0.433    0.351    0.364
 2018    0.172    0.062    0.131    0.063   -0.001   -0.011    0.017    0.112    0.162    0.143   -0.121   -0.060
 2019   -0.015 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the AMO atmospherically driven or ocean current driven? The data would seem to suggest the former. Perhaps a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

So is the AMO atmospherically driven or ocean current driven? The data would seem to suggest the former. Perhaps a combination of both.

It seems to be the former. 

100-16-28-90-57-14-3-15.gif

Africa had a lot of rain last year.. cold SSTs off the coast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AfewUniversesBelowNormal said:

It seems to be the former. 

100-16-28-90-57-14-3-15.gif

Africa had a lot of rain last year.. cold SSTs off the coast. 

There's no way you could ever have a cold AMO in a world with global warming at the ocean current level (deep ocean). At least relative to a 20th century baseline your water temperatures would never show up as anomalously cold. The cold AMO would appear more readily if we picked a hypothetical selection of years based on GHG simulations and used them as analogs.

I note however that the AMO is based on temperature differentials between two regions and not the temperature of the water. This is all assuming the AMOC remains stable and functioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth linear increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may mask effects of global warming.[5]

A 2017 study predicts a continued cooling shift beginning 2014, and the authors note, "..unlike the last cold period in the Atlantic, the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies in the Atlantic is not uniformly cool, but instead has anomalously cold temperatures in the subpolar gyre, warm temperatures in the subtropics and cool anomalies over the tropics. The tripole pattern of anomalies has increased the subpolar to subtropical meridional gradient in SSTs, which are not represented by the AMO index value, but which may lead to increased atmospheric baroclinicity and storminess."[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the AMO site, the raw data shows 2018 had a colder AMO by raw SSTs than over 20 years, including several in the prior warm cycle peak in the 1950s/early 1960s. NDJ in particular looks like it is colder than around 30 years since 1856 on the data, including 1878. So I don't really buy the idea that the AMO isn't capable of cooling dramatically. If you use 1981-2010 as the baseline, the oceans are around +0.35C right now on Tropical Tidbits, but we're only +0.1 in the AMO zone against that time period and its been a long time since the Atlantic was lagging the other oceans for warmth. Recent similar Atlantic raw temperatures (2011, 2009, 2000, etc) were when the oceans were 0.1C or more cooler than now. The annual AMO warming comes out to +0.2C every 70 years on the ESRL raw data site, so being below a lot of years in the 1950s in actual temps, not de-trended values does support a flip coming relatively soon. We've been colder than plenty of months in the prior peak for a while now, its just whether it will last or not - bold months are warmer in the prior AMO cycle, when it was colder globally.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data

 1954   19.407   18.831   18.814   19.123   20.073   21.321   22.406   23.164   23.058   22.247   21.157   20.031
 1955   19.259   18.778   18.758   19.235   20.182   21.418   22.722   23.355   23.275   22.561   21.573   20.342
 1956   19.372   18.835   18.733   19.205   19.951   20.963   22.366   23.085   22.986   22.242   21.103   20.107
 1957   19.107   18.637   18.702   19.071   19.890   21.218   22.499   23.388   23.298   22.437   21.276   20.170
 1958   19.239   18.935   19.068   19.493   20.215   21.454   22.626   23.350   23.292   22.442   21.380   20.313
 1959   19.293   18.863   18.700   19.146   20.024   21.176   22.433   23.203   23.208   22.405   21.248   20.206
 1960   19.372   18.968   18.818   19.249   20.322   21.557   22.738   23.529   23.296   22.591   21.450   20.236
 1961   19.259   18.835   18.881   19.382   20.215   21.273   22.451   23.232   23.091   22.327   21.269   20.314
 1962   19.350   18.908   18.900   19.245   20.047   21.172   22.464   23.136   23.095   22.366   21.251   20.294
 1963   19.361   18.925   18.871   19.264   19.942   21.199   22.439   23.128   22.891   22.231   21.150   20.046
 2018   19.529   18.974   19.022   19.376   20.179   21.387   22.645   23.467   23.408   22.599   21.240   20.199
 2019   19.344  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We lucked out. That kind of anomaly is not likely to occur again. Take a look at the global average and deep ocean heat content. The AGW signal is about to burst through the background noise in a big way. This is the kind of data that ends civilizations. The change is so abrupt and unexpected.

Most of that cooling on the ocean surface was AGW forced in the first place. Due to the tripole pattern configuration and increased trade winds (due to hadley cell expansion)

Remember that if you have no sun or sustained cloud cover global warming cannot do it's work. You might as well be bouncing the heat into the stratosphere which is already cooler than before due to GHGs. There are several tipping points outside the scope of this particular subject. The most prominent ones are always cloud feedbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

We lucked out. That kind of anomaly is not likely to occur again. Take a look at the global average and deep ocean heat content. The AGW signal is about to burst through the background noise in a big way. This is the kind of data that ends civilizations. The change is so abrupt and unexpected.

Not saying I support the current (or all?) civilizations but I would rather not see my children live in that kind of fallout-esque world.

Most of that cooling on the ocean surface was AGW forced in the first place. Due to the tripole pattern configuration and increased trade winds (due to hadley cell expansion)

Remember that if you have no sun or sustained cloud cover global warming cannot do it's work. You might as well be bouncing the heat into the stratosphere which is already cooler than before due to GHGs. There are several tipping points outside the scope of this particular subject. The most prominent ones are always cloud feedbacks.

The oceans are 30,000 feet deep in places, mostly in the 30s. The entire range in the history of the AMO time series is 1C on an annual basis if you actually look at what I linked despite 150 years of warming. The range is literally 20.27C to 21.27C on an annual basis from 1856-2018. 2018 was 21.00C, not even that close to the record. Whenever someone points out that it may not be quite as bad as you think, or as linearly tied to warming as you think you just go on some tirade. The AMO is essentially a +/-0.5C variation from a mean that is going up by 0.2C / 70 years, so when we cycle back the 1970s part of the pattern you'd expect the ocean to be colder than now. The late 1950s had the AMO peak and then it began erratically dropping, if the cycle is 60-65 years, we're there now, which would explain why the raw temperatures on an annual basis for 2018 are below a lot of years in the 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raindancewx said:

The oceans are 30,000 feet deep in places, mostly in the 30s. The entire range in the history of the AMO time series is 1C on an annual basis if you actually look at what I linked despite 150 years of warming. The range is literally 20.27C to 21.27C on an annual basis from 1856-2018. 2018 was 21.00C, not even that close to the record. Whenever someone points out that it may not be quite as bad as you think, or as linearly tied to warming as you think you just go on some tirade. The AMO is essentially a +/0.5C variation from a mean that is going up by 0.2C / 70 years, so when we cycle back the 1970s part of the pattern you'd expect the ocean to be colder than now. The late 1950s had the AMO peak and then it began erratically dropping, if the cycle is 60-65 years, we're there now, which would explain why the raw temperatures on an annual basis are below a lot of years in the 1950s.

Sure the 1950s had an exceptionally warm AMO also had a AGW component albeit without the build up of oceanic inertia. A modern cold phase will show as cooler in raw SSTs for awhile longer versus past warm phases. That was also before we started filling the atmosphere with particulate pollution (which is a negative forcing). You can make convenient arguments but the road still leads to the same end result.

The oceans being 30k feet deep can also work against you. By the time we want to decide on moving forward with a functioning world we will have to deal with millennia of heat inertia in the oceans. I have been pondering this predicament for so long and It just becomes frustrating when people get absorbed in macro-scale phenomenon and/or they confuse weather with climate.

Other times they are not being faithful to themselves because they have invested their life into a system which will soon be abandoned by necessity. I empathize with you but I need to be precise on this matter. Rather than live in denial you should exact compensation from the power structure of civilization. Use the reparations to build something functional. It's never too late.

That may not necessarily be effectual but we are adamant on ending generational injustices which will likely persist into the deep future (perhaps as far as 12-24 human generations). Mitigating their effects as much as possible on behalf of posterity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMO is still pretty similar to the 1950s, despite the AMO trending up by +0.2C every 70 years. 

 2019   19.344   18.995   19.014  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990  -99.990 
 1953   19.443   18.917   18.852   19.447   20.343   21.495   22.792   23.434   23.346   22.424   21.425   20.338
 1954   19.407   18.831   18.814   19.123   20.073   21.321   22.406   23.164   23.058   22.247   21.157   20.031
 1955   19.259   18.778   18.758   19.235   20.182   21.418   22.722   23.355   23.275   22.561   21.573   20.342
 1956   19.372   18.835   18.733   19.205   19.951   20.963   22.366   23.085   22.986   22.242   21.103   20.107
 1957   19.107   18.637   18.702   19.071   19.890   21.218   22.499   23.388   23.298   22.437   21.276   20.170
 1958   19.239   18.935   19.068   19.493   20.215   21.454   22.626   23.350   23.292   22.442   21.380   20.313
 1959   19.293   18.863   18.700   19.146   20.024   21.176   22.433   23.203   23.208   22.405   21.248   20.206
 1960   19.372   18.968   18.818   19.249   20.322   21.557   22.738   23.529   23.296   22.591   21.450   20.236
 1961   19.259   18.835   18.881   19.382   20.215   21.273   22.451   23.232   23.091   22.327   21.269   20.314
 1962   19.350   18.908   18.900   19.245   20.047   21.172   22.464   23.136   23.095   22.366   21.251   20.294
 1963   19.361   18.925   18.871   19.264   19.942   21.199   22.439   23.128   22.891   22.231   21.150   20.046
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×