PDO/AMO and Global Climate Change

[skierinvermont]

Short story: Peer review is bad because I don't want to believe in AGW.

[Jonger]

It's a process. Whether it's good or not is up for debate, but having a process is better than no process, I agree there. Of course with that being said, non peer reviewed studies can certainly provide factual information. There's going to be a bias in everything, and part of the duty of the reader is to become knowledgeable about those potential biases. We've got to weigh the various biases against each other to come up w/ the most truthful solution/answer.

 

Peer reviewing is fine, but so is allowing modern media sources to enter into the dialog. I got a bit hot earlier after another poster tried to squash dialog because it didn't pass through her system of blessings. It's fine and dandy in 1985, but in 2013 that doesn't jive anymore.

[bluewave]

Yeah, I understand the argument for it and it is a valid one.  I just don't know if it actually is better than the alternative.  Is a less transparent Gatekeeper of sorts worse than a more transparent Gatekeeper? 

 

I think that the physical sciences which we are concerned about here do a good job. But medical journals have had

several high profile frauds and errors published. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101115210944.htm

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57376073/deception-at-duke-fraud-in-cancer-care/

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109

[ben4vols]

Short story: Peer review is bad because I don't want to believe in AGW.

 

So is the opposite true as well?  I'm not against peer review, if there were more transparency to it. 

[ben4vols]

I think that the physical sciences which we are concerned about here do a good job. But medical journals have had

several high profile frauds and errors published. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101115210944.htm

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57376073/deception-at-duke-fraud-in-cancer-care/

 

Any science where politics becomes involved usually has some form of corruption.  Usually the corruption is aided by the peer review process.  Climate science, like medicine, is a huge political football. 

[skierinvermont]

So is the opposite true as well?  I'm not against peer review, if there were more transparency to it. 

 

Peer review is transparent. Authors submit their data, methods, and conclusions for review by peers. Journals require all methods and data to be made available publicly. Other peers may respond to the conclusions in subsequent journal publications. 

 

By contrast, none of the above can be said for many blog entries. The figures created often do not have publicly available methods. They are often created to be deliberately deceiving. And there is no opportunity for response on an equal footing. Responses are relegated to the comments section of blogs, where they are often deleted if they do not agree with the author's viewpoint. Blogs are often run as small fiefdoms where the only dialog permitted is that which agrees with the blog owner.

[skierinvermont]

Any science where politics becomes involved usually has some form of corruption.  Usually the corruption is aided by the peer review process.  Climate science, like medicine, is a huge political football. 

 

I take it then that you do not make use of any modern medicine. I guess the upside to that is that you might not be posting here too much longer.

[LithiaWx]

The peer review process is not perfect but it does serve a good purpose. I'd rather have the imperfect peer review system we have than nothing at all,

[Isotherm]

Any science where politics becomes involved usually has some form of corruption.  Usually the corruption is aided by the peer review process.  Climate science, like medicine, is a huge political football. 

 

Generally agree. With politics, or more specifically, when there is a monetary benefit in supporting a particular position, there will be bias for sure. If anyone thinks the science / climate science field is completely pure and innocent, they're only fooling themselves. We have corruption in almost everything. Given a battle between medicine and climate science though, the former wins in corruption I'd say.

[ben4vols]

I take it then that you do not make use of any modern medicine. I guess the upside to that is that you might not be posting here too much longer.

 

Quite a reach there. 

[bluewave]

Any science where politics becomes involved usually has some form of corruption.  Usually the corruption is aided by the peer review process.  Climate science, like medicine, is a huge political football. 

 

But climate science and meteorology have some of the best track records when it comes to publishing papers.

 

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118#pone-0044118-g001

 

 

We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.

Conclusions

Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

[The_Global_Warmer]

But climate science and meteorology have some of the best track records when it comes to publishing papers.

 

Screen shot 2013-06-26 at 6.23.11 AM.png

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118#pone-0044118-g001

 

 

We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.

Conclusions

Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers’ awareness of the retracted literature in their field.

 

 

HAMMER SLAMMER

[SVT450R]

I see we are back to the AMO fairytale talk.    Also if i remember correctly i believe Skier showed last year some data that showed correlation with the PDO and Bering Sea extent.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I see we are back to the AMO fairytale talk.    Also if i remember correctly i believe Skier showed last year some data that showed correlation with the PDO and Bering Sea extent.

 

 

We have no empirical evidence of the AMO.  Do you have any  Do you understand that we can program models to model out the AMO how we believe it works based on what we know about ocean currents and modulating the N. ATL SSTS.  Yet actually having observational data of these under water currents doesn't exist. 

 

If it does, please post it. 

 

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/decadal-variations-and-amo-part-i/

 

The AMO lags GISS and ENSO. 

 

 

But my favorite is this graphic.  When excluding the North Atlantic vs the full global sst with it included.  It's incredibly similar.  If those differences are all put on the AMO cycle.  Assuming no other natural variance, weather, or GHG forcing.  It's miniscule.  If half of it is the AMO and the rest other stuff then it's less than noise in the global ssts. 

 

 

Is that what this comes down to noise? 

 

 

 

 

I am sure you think I am not being genuine.  But I couldn't be more serious.  The graphic above isn't twisting anything.  it essentially shows that any underwater heat oscillation in the Atlantic has very little bearing on things.  It also says 90%+ of an AMO cycle is actually driven by the global energy budget and global climate vs any Atlantic underwater current oscillation. 

 

We remove the N. Atlantic and the globe is almost unaffected.  this is no surprise.  This same procedure works about anywhere and the more ocean you cover the stronger the impact.

 

But if one area that is relatively small like the North Atlantic was having any sort of noticeable impact it would show up with the N. Atlantic deviating much greater than it does. 

 

In the most recent years it shows the Positive AMO if even 100 percent responsible for the Atlantic deviations which it wouldn't be has again almost no impact and the Atlantic/Globe would be just as warm regardless.

 

 

Yet people take the N. Atlantic SSTS out of context and show those dips and valleys  like they are unique to the North Atlantic. Then detrend it and then you have this:

 

 

This makes it look impressive eh?  Yet the real fluctuations between the "AMO" and the global SSTS are a tenth of what this graphic shows.

 

 

90% of the perceived AMO is driven by global weather and climate.  Remove the N. Atlantic from the global ssta and detrend it and it will look like the graphic below.

 

Is that the Global Multi decade Oscillation then? 

 

 

 

[Jonger]

So let me get this straight, the PDO exists, the AMO doesn't....

[ORH_wxman]

Friv, of course the global SSTs with or without the AMO won't look all that different because the North Atlantic is a relatively small portion of the global oceans. That's a silly graph to show...it only proves the North Atlantic is a small portion of the global oceans, which we already knew.

[bluewave]

We have no empirical evidence of the AMO.  Do you have any  Do you understand that we can program models to model out the AMO how we believe it works based on what we know about ocean currents and modulating the N. ATL SSTS.  Yet actually having observational data of these under water currents doesn't exist. 

 

If it does, please post it. 

 

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/decadal-variations-and-amo-part-i/

 

The AMO lags GISS and ENSO. 

 

 

But my favorite is this graphic.  When excluding the North Atlantic vs the full global sst with it included.  It's incredibly similar.  If those differences are all put on the AMO cycle.  Assuming no other natural variance, weather, or GHG forcing.  It's miniscule.  If half of it is the AMO and the rest other stuff then it's less than noise in the global ssts. 

 

 

Is that what this comes down to noise? 

 

 

 

 

I am sure you think I am not being genuine.  But I couldn't be more serious.  The graphic above isn't twisting anything.  it essentially shows that any underwater heat oscillation in the Atlantic has very little bearing on things.  It also says 90%+ of an AMO cycle is actually driven by the global energy budget and global climate vs any Atlantic underwater current oscillation. 

 

We remove the N. Atlantic and the globe is almost unaffected.  this is no surprise.  This same procedure works about anywhere and the more ocean you cover the stronger the impact.

 

But if one area that is relatively small like the North Atlantic was having any sort of noticeable impact it would show up with the N. Atlantic deviating much greater than it does. 

 

In the most recent years it shows the Positive AMO if even 100 percent responsible for the Atlantic deviations which it wouldn't be has again almost no impact and the Atlantic/Globe would be just as warm regardless.

 

 

Yet people take the N. Atlantic SSTS out of context and show those dips and valleys  like they are unique to the North Atlantic. Then detrend it and then you have this:

 

 

This makes it look impressive eh?  Yet the real fluctuations between the "AMO" and the global SSTS are a tenth of what this graphic shows.

 

 

90% of the perceived AMO is driven by global weather and climate.  Remove the N. Atlantic from the global ssta and detrend it and it will look like the graphic below.

 

Is that the Global Multi decade Oscillation then? 

 

 

 

 

We have plenty of evidence for the existence of the AMO.

 

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html#ref47

 

Understanding the internal ocean variability and its influence on climate is imperative for society. A key aspect concerns the enigmatic Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a feature defined by a 60- to 90-year variability in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures. The nature and origin of the AMO is uncertain, and it remains unknown whether it represents a persistent periodic driver in the climate system, or merely a transient feature. Here, we show that distinct, ~55- to 70-year oscillations characterized the North Atlantic ocean-atmosphere variability over the past 8,000 years. We test and reject the hypothesis that this climate oscillation was directly forced by periodic changes in solar activity. We therefore conjecture that a quasi-persistent ~55- to 70-year AMO, linked to internal ocean-atmosphere variability, existed during large parts of the Holocene. Our analyses further suggest that the coupling from the AMO to regional climate conditions was modulated by orbitally induced shifts in large-scale ocean-atmosphere circulation.

 

A quasi-persistent 55- to 70-year oscillation thus appears to have influenced climate in the North Atlantic region during both warmer and colder intervals. Underpinned by comparative studies of instrumental and proxy climate records, we infer that these Holocene climate variations correspond to the AMO recognized in instrumental data. The AMO known from the relatively short instrumental record therefore appears, when viewed over longer time intervals, to display a more well-defined and slightly narrower oscillation band than previously believed. Hence, our findings suggest that a 55- to 70-year quasi-persistent AMO, forced by internal ocean-atmosphere variability, existed throughout most of the Holocene. Its coupling to regional climate appears to have been modulated by insolation-driven shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns and sea-ice cover. These findings underline the need to better understand the influence of the AMO on global and regional climate variations over the last century. The study has also implications for future climate scenarios, as our analyses suggest that the AMO exerted a stronger influence on regional climate variability in the northern North Atlantic region during times of high North Atlantic SST compared with colder periods. Given the increase in North Atlantic SST over the past ~30 years, and the expected future increase in global SST, we anticipate that the influence of the AMO on climate variability in the northern North Atlantic region will increase in response to the future warming of the North Atlantic Ocean. Moreover, the AMO shifted into its warm phase in the 1990s (Fig. 1), which may have accentuated global warming in this period. A return from a warm to a cold AMO phase could temporarily mask the effects of anthropogenic global warming⁴⁷, and thus lead to possible underestimation of future warming if the variability of the AMO is not taken into account.

 

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere’s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/

 

Statistical-significance testing showed the leading M-SSA pair – our climate signal – to be unlikely due to random temporal alignment of uncorrelated red-noise indices, the chance for such being less than three percent. It is not uncommon for geophysical time series to possess a strong low-frequency component – red-noise. This is due to slowly varying factors within geophysical systems that build in inertia, conveying a “memory” that manifests as a spurious low-frequency oscillatory temporal signal. Such red noise can contaminate a possible “real” low-frequency signal. This caveat can be minimized if a coherent spatial structure, distinct from noise, characterizes a quasi-periodic signal. Our stadium-wave signal, present in a set of indices representing geographically diverse regions – i.e. a coherent spatial structure – minimizes the likelihood the signal will reflect contamination. Separation of signal from noise, therefore, is more robust.  

 

Proxy and instrumental records reflect a quasi-cyclic 50-to-80-year climate signal across the Northern Hemisphere, with particular presence in the North Atlantic. Modeling studies rationalize this variability in terms of intrinsic dynamics of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation influencing distribution of sea-surface-temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Ocean; hence the name Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). By analyzing a lagged covariance structure of a network of climate indices, this study details the AMO-signal propagation throughout the Northern Hemisphere via a sequence of atmospheric and lagged oceanic teleconnections, which the authors term the “stadium wave”. Initial changes in the North Atlantic temperature anomaly associated with AMO culminate in an oppositely signed hemispheric signal about 30 years later. Furthermore, shorter-term, interannual-to-interdecadal climate variability alters character according to polarity of the stadium-wave-induced prevailing hemispheric climate regime. Ongoing research suggests mutual interaction between shorter-term variability and the stadium wave, with indication of ensuing modifications of multidecadal variability within the Atlantic sector. Results presented here support the hypothesis that AMO plays a significant role in hemispheric and, by inference, global climate variability, with implications for climate-change attribution and prediction.

[SVT450R]

Friv so we can all be on the same page here you seem to be implying that the AMO is not a real climate variability and is a false index am i correct?

[Snow_Miser]

Friv so we can all be on the same page here you seem to be implying that the AMO is not a real climate variability and is a false index am i correct?

That is correct. He says there is no "empirical evidence of the AMO."

[ORH_wxman]

I do not see the use of debating the existence of the AMO in this thread any longer...its on Friv to show that the AMO is a faux index that doesn't represent any real climate oscillation despite the plethora of papers (both old and new) that say otherwise.

Perhaps a new thread can be started for that if you all want to carry the discussion further. This thread should really be about arctic sea ice.

[SVT450R]

I do not see the use of debating the existence of the AMO in this thread any longer...its on Friv to show that the AMO is a faux index that doesn't represent any real climate oscillation despite the plethora of papers (both old and new) that say otherwise.

Perhaps a new thread can be started for that if you all want to carry the discussion further. This thread should really be about arctic sea ice.

Agreed

[SVT450R]

Friv so we can all be on the same page here you seem to be implying that the AMO is not a real climate variability and is a false index am i correct?

[tacoman25]

It's clear there are different types of deniers.

[Wow]

It's clear there are different types of deniers.

 

Pretty soon we'll have sea ice deniers. 

[WXheights]

Denial runs Deep on all its tributaries

[WE GOT HIM]

Do you guys ever think that we just don't have the information to really draw any conclusion if warming is man made (which seems to be the majority on this board)? It is pretty clear that over the last century there has been some type of a warmup. However, we only have exact statistical data for about 150 years or less, depending on the location. Even if we include ice cores and other temperature obtaining methods, the sample size is so small compared to the age of the plant. How can we really say what is normal or not? It's as if we are predicting a presidential race by just polling 18 year old females that live in New York City and are left handed lol.

 

The Earth has had many ice ages in its recent history and as long as Antarctic is still at the south pole, chances are the planet will see more, whether we like it or not. Worst of all, we can only speculate what caused the previous ones. Hell, there is even a growing consensus that the planet was was a snow ball at-least 2 twice in its semi distant past. I guess my point is we know very little about our complex planet and Sun, and tomorrow a single event can change all that we thought we had figured out.

 

I am not a climate expert or claim to be one, but I have read a lot about this topic, particularly on earth's violent history and I just get frustrated when people look at a tree and not the forest.

[Sundog]

User13 I'm sorry to say that you lack the paper education in this field. For example, we don't need to speculate what caused the past glaciations, we know exactly what is responsible.

[GaWx]

Friv,

Denying that the clearly evident AMO exists is quite silly and baseless imo. Come on, man, please get real. I may have to put down the ice cream and instead consider smoking some of your weed. That must be some really good stuff!

[skierinvermont]

Uranium has been around for billions of years, but I don't need to know the history of Uranium to know that it is radioactive.

 

CO2 has been around for billions of years, but I don't need to know the history of CO2 to know that it is a greenhouse gas that keeps the earth warm.

[skierinvermont]

Friv,

Denying that the clearly evident AMO exists is quite silly and baseless imo. Come on, man, please get real.

 

Depending on how it is calculated, the AMO can be a byproduct of global warming. However, changes in the AMOC independent of global warming probably mean the AMO can be independent of global warming as well.