Recent U.S and NH Warmth- Positive AMO?

[skierinvermont]

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.

 

 

Why do you assume that 1983-2013 warming has been enhanced by natural variability? The 1980s were +PDO and record solar activity. We're now in a -PDO and record low solar activity. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

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. 

 

Don't worry I am done here for the most part.  You can take over the sea ice thread and fill in my shoes.  Hopefully you keep the analysis above looking at squiqly lines on a chart pretending to actually be interest in the science of it and not just here becuase you are deeply addicted to snow.

 

 

What is classic is that you have ZERO PHYSICAL PROOF/OBS OF THE AMO.  But you pretend you do and then say I am denying evidence. 

 

Do you deny no physical proof?

 

Do you deny that the North Atlantic SSTS lag ENSO, Global SSTs, and GISS?

 

Those are called holes, hangups? Call them what you want.  But until you show physical observation of this, it's just a hypothoses.

[ORH_wxman]

Don't worry I am done here for the most part.  You can take over the sea ice thread and fill in my shoes.  Hopefully you keep the analysis above looking at squiqly lines on a chart pretending to actually be interest in the science of it and not just here becuase you are deeply addicted to snow.

 

 

What is classic is that you have ZERO PHYSICAL PROOF/OBS OF THE AMO.  But you pretend you do and then say I am denying evidence. 

 

Do you deny no physical proof?

 

Do you deny that the North Atlantic SSTS lag ENSO, Global SSTs, and GISS?

 

Those are called holes, hangups? Call them what you want.  But until you show physical observation of this, it's just a hypothoses.

 

 

Feedbacks to CO2 are all just a hypothesis too, yet we know they exist. The magnitude and exact physical processes surrounding them (esp cloud feedbacks) is uncertain, but we know they exist. Does the lack of physical proof explaining how, where, and to what magnitude they exert their will on the energy budget keep you from believing that climate sensitivity is over 1.0C? The answer is no. You certainly believe the climate sensitivity is higher than 1C...just like >99% of anyone else who reads up on climate science believes.

 

You can throw a tantrum and leave because you insist the AMO doesn't actually exist (whatever that even means...since the AMO is just a measurement) while others provide dozens of links to you over the last year supporting the evidence of an AMO....or you can actually respond to them with your own peer reviewed evidence that it indeed does not exist and is simply a reflection of global temps. You have yet to do the latter.

[Snow_Miser]

Feedbacks to CO2 are all just a hypothesis too, yet we know they exist. The magnitude and exact physical processes surrounding them (esp cloud feedbacks) is uncertain, but we know they exist. Does the lack of physical proof explaining how, where, and to what magnitude they exert their will on the energy budget keep you from believing that climate sensitivity is over 1.0C? The answer is no. You certainly believe the climate sensitivity is higher than 1C...just like >99% of anyone else who reads up on climate science believes.

 

You can throw a tantrum and leave because you insist the AMO doesn't actually exist (whatever that even means...since the AMO is just a measurement) while others provide dozens of links to you over the last year supporting the evidence of an AMO....or you can actually respond to them with your own peer reviewed evidence that it indeed does not exist and is simply a reflection of global temps. You have yet to do the latter.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Feedbacks to CO2 are all just a hypothesis too, yet we know they exist. The magnitude and exact physical processes surrounding them (esp cloud feedbacks) is uncertain, but we know they exist. Does the lack of physical proof explaining how, where, and to what magnitude they exert their will on the energy budget keep you from believing that climate sensitivity is over 1.0C? The answer is no. You certainly believe the climate sensitivity is higher than 1C...just like >99% of anyone else who reads up on climate science believes.

 

You can throw a tantrum and leave because you insist the AMO doesn't actually exist (whatever that even means...since the AMO is just a measurement) while others provide dozens of links to you over the last year supporting the evidence of an AMO....or you can actually respond to them with your own peer reviewed evidence that it indeed does not exist and is simply a reflection of global temps. You have yet to do the latter.

 

 

Co2 is the mechanism of action.

 

big difference.

 

 

There is no mechanism of action when it comes to AMO.  That is fact.

 

 

There are facts backed by proof of mechanism of action like CO2 FORCING.  And there are things like the AMO that are not proven witha mechanism of action.

 

We track co2.  We have no proof the amo is what many hypothesize it is. 

 

but yet it gets treated as if it has real life physical backing and it doesn't.  I have no choice but to object to that. 

 

The AMO signal could be heavily influenced by AGW, by other natural oscillations, by the sun, by AGW feedback's, by tropical activity, the polar jet, Cosmic rays, clouds, Volcanoes,   I can go on and on. 

 

 

But yet the AMO signal can't accoutn for any of that.  Because we have no mechanism of action and it's influence to back how much of that proposed signal is an ocean heat exchange cycle or all of that other stuff.

 

 

This renders the AMO very minute to me.

 

This graph only tries to pull an AMO signal out of the North Atlantic SSTA.  But yet we know the AMO doesn't have almost any influence on the global regime.

 

 

 

 

Maybe something bigger is causing the AMO to seem so "large".

 

Once we are done with all the correlations the left over whatever that is would be small and almost inconsequential. 

 

 

 

 

I am tired of this place.  Because I am tired of being labeled a warminist.  I am tired of not being able to freely speak of the consequences of AGW. 

 

I am vehemently tired of the folks who say I love watching the ice melt while they say they love watching the fall more.  Yet its total crap.  It's a ploy to make this out to be some sort of game or two sides.  There are not two sides.  There is debate of scientific stances.  This is a forum of science not politics. 

 

How often have you seen me talk about the total warming of AGW?  I don't much because I get that feedback's are not mechanism of action.  And are hard to deduce.  you see me speak of GHGs as fact thats about it.

 

 

Solar is fact but hard to deduce total impact. I question the PDO and AMO.  I also question ENSO but more in a predictive stance because of how it's driven to existence.  It's grounded in fact unlike the others. 

 

I question the AMO more than the PDO because the PDO can be seen mathematically as a global impact where as the AMO blends so much easier.

 

 

 

Lastly, the AMO should be rising still if it only cycled warm in 1996 why is it not?  Maybe it is being overwhelmed by something else?  The same thing that slowed overall global warming?

 

Some call it weaker than thought GHG or feedbacks.

 

Some call it the -PDO and the Sun.

 

Some call it the aresols and Sun.  And mix and match.

 

 

 

I question why the amo doesn't continue to warm regardless if its an under water oscilation.

[ORH_wxman]

Why should the AMO keep warming because it went positive in the mid 1990s? And why to you continue to post a completely useless graph that shows the global sea surface temperatures minus the North Atlantic are similar to the global sea surface temperatures including the North Atlantic? Of course it shows that since the North Atlantic is a small percent of the oceans.

 

You also completely left out any reference to the thermohaline circulation and AMOC (Atlantic Overturning Meridional Circulaiton) when listing potential factors that affect the AMO...those are physical movements of water which affect and are affected by salinity and temperature. You obviously have not read up on these despite the dozen of links supplied to you in the past...so this argument is pretty useless until you actually read more about the AMO and the circulations in the Atlantic.

[CoastalWx]

Friv, why are you so passionate about the arctic, but refuse to see any side when it goes against your thinking? Obvious points penetrate into your head like a nerf dart through steel. You have to be open and you literally shut the door and ignore obvious data when it goes against what you believe.