AMO Turns Negative(at least temporarily)

[blizzard1024]

Even in it current positive overall state of the past several years, the AMO

has trended negative(probably temporary). The AMO strongly correlates

to the U.S temperatures and especially the northeast. This could be one

reason  why this winter has been so cold east of the Rockies. See below...

 

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

I think this temporary negative AMO phase has been greatly influenced by the cold air intrusions from the North American continent. Probably a response downstream to the residual effects of the new -EPO pattern. Important to differentiate between internal and external-based variability.

 

The West Atlantic remains very warm so I would assume a change in ocean currents is not responsible for the -AMO.

[blizzard1024]

I think this temporary negative AMO phase has been greatly influenced by the cold air intrusions from the North American continent. Probably a response downstream to the residual effects of the new -EPO pattern. Important to differentiate between internal and external-based variability.

 

The West Atlantic remains very warm so I would assume a change in ocean currents is not responsible for the -AMO.

 

Yeah you are probably correct here...just interesting. Wonder was the deeper water anomalies show? It is also colder off of Africa...strong trade winds and upwelling?? 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I agree with weatherguy701. From what I've read in the peer reviewed literature, it is suggested that fluctuations in the "AMO" are correlated to shifts in the latitude of the Hadley and Ferrel circulations of the Northern Hemisphere. So it may be a systematic phenomenon of some sort, rather than a North Atlantic manifestation.

As studies have noted, this would explain why the "AMO signal" (if you can even call it that) shows up in the Indian Ocean region, North Pacific, etc. Unlike the PDO which measures a contrast in North Pacific SSTs, the AMO strictly measures SST anomalies on a de-trended base.

But if you remove the de-trending, you find a steady underlying warming in the North Atlantic that roughly syncs up to measured variations in global temperatures. So the AMO may just be a reflection of hemispheric climate rather than a mode of specific internal variability.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think this temporary negative AMO phase has been greatly influenced by the cold air intrusions from the North American continent. Probably a response downstream to the residual effects of the new -EPO pattern. Important to differentiate between internal and external-based variability.

 

The West Atlantic remains very warm so I would assume a change in ocean currents is not responsible for the -AMO.

 

 

There is great fluctuation.

 

Here are ssta in the AMO domain going back to 2000. 2005. 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

I agree with weatherguy701. From what I've read in the peer reviewed literature, it is suggested that fluctuations in the "AMO" are correlated to shifts in the latitude of the Hadley and Ferrel circulations of the Northern Hemisphere. So it may be a systematic phenomenon of some sort, rather than a North Atlantic manifestation.

As studies have noted, this would explain why the "AMO signal" (if you can even call it that) shows up in the Indian Ocean region, North Pacific, etc. Unlike the PDO which measures a contrast in North Pacific SSTs, the AMO strictly measures SST anomalies on a de-trended base.

But if you remove the de-trending, you find a steady underlying warming in the North Atlantic that roughly syncs up to measured variations in global temperatures. So the AMO may just be a reflection of hemispheric climate rather than a mode of specific internal variability.

 

This is not true. There are tons of peer review literature supporting this oscillation even

in the paleo data which suggests it is indeed internal variability.  In fact, colder

waters in the North Atlantic if they hold would slow or reverse the melting of the summer Arctic sea ice

and lead to a recovery.  Once the AMO goes negative or cold again, I predict the Arctic sea ice will recover. 

 

Here are just a few peer reviewed papers....

 

http://192.111.123.246/phod/docs/enfield/enfield_etal2001.pdf

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/GeophysResLetters_Gray_04.pdf

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/roz/web_files/zd06.pdf

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/

 

There are many more. 

[AvantHiatus]

All natural global and regional oscillations are considerable background noise when overlayed with anthropogenic forcings. To claim otherwise is to be a denier and a contrarian.

 

Even in the event that both natural forcings and AGW forcings are equally influential, the end result would be the same and the trend in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures reflects this concept quite well with colder periods that are warmer than the previous cold period and vice versa, clear evidence of amplification via greenhouse radiative processes.

Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?

Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20^th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.

 

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo

[Msalgado]

This is not true. There are tons of peer review literature supporting this oscillation even

in the paleo data which suggests it is indeed internal variability.  In fact, colder

waters in the North Atlantic if they hold would slow or reverse the melting of the summer Arctic sea ice

and lead to a recovery.  Once the AMO goes negative or cold again, I predict the Arctic sea ice will recover. 

 

Here are just a few peer reviewed papers....

 

http://192.111.123.246/phod/docs/enfield/enfield_etal2001.pdf

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/GeophysResLetters_Gray_04.pdf

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/roz/web_files/zd06.pdf

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/

 

There are many more. 

 

None of your links back up this claim and thats probably because there's no peer reviewed literature that believes the AMO is the primary driver of arctic sea ice loss.  None that I'm aware of, anyway.

[skierinvermont]

Just 5 years ago all the faux-skeptics were saying recovery was imminent because of the -PDO. Sea ice area during the last +AMO was 3X greater than what it has been for recent summers.

[blizzard1024]

All natural global and regional oscillations are considerable background noise when overlayed with anthropogenic forcings. To claim otherwise is to be a denier and a contrarian.

 

Even in the event that both natural forcings and AGW forcings are equally influential, the end result would be the same and the trend in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures reflects this concept quite well with colder periods that are warmer than the previous cold period and vice versa, clear evidence of amplification via greenhouse radiative processes.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo

 

So you are saying that anthropogenic forcing is dominating the climate system over natural variability? ~ 2 w/m2 is driving the whole climate system???...LOL.   The entire greenhouse effect is ~ 340 w/m2. This is not even 1%. The current external forcing would equal about .7C or so with all things being equal and it would be spread out over decades due to oceans. Hardly trumps natural climate variations. Not even close. 

[blizzard1024]

None of your links back up this claim and thats probably because there's no peer reviewed literature that believes the AMO is the primary driver of arctic sea ice loss.  None that I'm aware of, anyway.

 

Common sense. Warmer than normal ocean water in the North Atlantic flows into the Arctic basin and of course thins the sea ice which makes it susceptible to summer ice loss. The AMO flipped to positive phase in the late 1990s. It reached its minimum in the cold phase in the late 1970s at the start of the satellite monitoring era. Since the late 1990s the AMO has been positive and late summer sea ice has been falling. If you look at the Sept sea ice extent graph, it really drops off in the 2000s and early 2010s during the height of the current warm AMO. The last time the AMO was in the warm phase was in the 1930s 40s and 50s and I bet if we had satellite monitoring it would have showed a downward trend. This is not in the peer review literature, I suspect, because everyone is fixated on CO2 as driving our climate system including recent arctic sea ice loss. We need to be looking at all factors...the sun, ocean currents, tropical convection, global cloud cover, land use, snow and ice, and internal natural variability. Climate models don't handle a lot of this stuff well at all and no one understands how the sun's variations impacts our climate. The sun's variations are written off as insignificant. Then how come during the LIA  there were no sunspots? and during the current warm period we reached a record high number of sunspots? The sun's TSI in the IR spectrum does not vary enough to cause the changes we see from the LIA to modern warm period, but the UV spectrum varies by up to 30%. This does affect the layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere but no one understands how this feedbacks to the troposphere. There is a lot to learn in climate but the present close-minded view that CO2 dominates everything is hindering progress in climate science IMO.   

[ben4vols]

The last time the AMO was in the warm phase was in the 1930s 40s and 50s and I bet if we had satellite monitoring it would have showed a downward trend. This is not in the peer review literature, I suspect, because everyone is fixated on CO2 as driving our climate system including recent arctic sea ice loss.

 

Good post.  When you look back at old Arctic Ice sketches from that time period you see just that.  Obviously, Atlantic anomalies have huge implications on Arctic Ice.  Like you, I think there will be a recovery as well over the next 20 years as the AMO oscillates back into a negative phase.   

[Msalgado]

Common sense. Warmer than normal ocean water in the North Atlantic flows into the Arctic basin and of course thins the sea ice which makes it susceptible to summer ice loss. The AMO flipped to positive phase in the late 1990s. It reached its minimum in the cold phase in the late 1970s at the start of the satellite monitoring era. Since the late 1990s the AMO has been positive and late summer sea ice has been falling. If you look at the Sept sea ice extent graph, it really drops off in the 2000s and early 2010s during the height of the current warm AMO. The last time the AMO was in the warm phase was in the 1930s 40s and 50s and I bet if we had satellite monitoring it would have showed a downward trend. This is not in the peer review literature, I suspect, because everyone is fixated on CO2 as driving our climate system including recent arctic sea ice loss. We need to be looking at all factors...the sun, ocean currents, tropical convection, global cloud cover, land use, snow and ice, and internal natural variability. Climate models don't handle a lot of this stuff well at all and no one understands how the sun's variations impacts our climate. The sun's variations are written off as insignificant. Then how come during the LIA  there were no sunspots? and during the current warm period we reached a record high number of sunspots? The sun's TSI in the IR spectrum does not vary enough to cause the changes we see from the LIA to modern warm period, but the UV spectrum varies by up to 30%. This does affect the layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere but no one understands how this feedbacks to the troposphere. There is a lot to learn in climate but the present close-minded view that CO2 dominates everything is hindering progress in climate science IMO.   

 

Common sense i don't care about  Scientific literature says that its likely the AMO has contributed to the ice loss for the reasons you have laid out above.  But as no study that I am aware of has determined it to be the dominant driver in ice loss there's absolutely no reason to expect a recovery or even a cessation of the loss.

 

The rest of your post devolves into the usual denier bs about solar influence.  There's absolutely a lot to learn about climate but the climate system isn't going to rewrite basic physics which is why much of what you're talking about has been dismissed, over, and over, and over, and over again.  

 

Shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every time there is a climate change discussion

[blizzard1024]

Common sense i don't care about  Scientific literature says that its likely the AMO has contributed to the ice loss for the reasons you have laid out above.  But as no study that I am aware of has determined it to be the dominant driver in ice loss there's absolutely no reason to expect a recovery or even a cessation of the loss.

 

The rest of your post devolves into the usual denier bs about solar influence.  There's absolutely a lot to learn about climate but the climate system isn't going to rewrite basic physics which is why much of what you're talking about has been dismissed, over, and over, and over, and over again.  

 

Shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every time there is a climate change discussion

 

I am NOT dismissing basic physics. You are ignorant of the complexities of the climate system. CO2 is one small factor that is what the basic physics states. There is plenty that we still don't fully understand. That is where the questions are. 

[Msalgado]

I'm far from an expert of the entirety of the climate system but I know enough to look toward the literature and what others have come up with in order to fill in the holes.  When you say things such as, and I quote:

 

"no one understands how the sun's variations impacts our climate."

 

then I'm not so sure you're in a position to be calling anyone else ignorant.  You're being very dismissive of the studies here that have looked at this and have come to the conclusion that - in fact - we do understand how the sun impacts our climate and we can ascertain that in fact while it has been responsible for a portion of the warming its even close to as much as CO2.  This is in the peer reviewed literature and has been confirmed time time again.

 

Instead, you point to the a correlation to the Sun and the LIA and the maunder min without noting that the LIA and the maunder min do not perfectly align.  You also don't mention studies which have looked at historical volcanic activity as a large contributor to the LIA.  In fact, studies have shown volcanic activity was responsible for just under HALF of the cooling over that period.  

 

So when you disagree with the literature that has shown these things, how else am I supposed to categorize it other than you ignoring the physics of the situation?  

 

The solar argument is so damn tired.  There's so much information out there that shows its not the sun and why we can be sure of that.  I don't understand why anyone is expected to argue against this stance over, and over, and over, and over again.

[Msalgado]

To get to they very core of the point, I am not interested in arguments where "common sense" is the proof.  If there is peer reviewed literature that says what you are saying about the Sun or the AMO then by all means please provide it.  I readily admit it is impossible for me to become an expert in every aspect of the climate system.  This is the very reason I rely on the work of others to supplement what I do know.  However, it does strike me as incredibly arrogant to strike down the peer reviewed work of others without something to back it up other than 'common sense'.

[blizzard1024]

To get to they very core of the point, I am not interested in arguments where "common sense" is the proof.  If there is peer reviewed literature that says what you are saying about the Sun or the AMO then by all means please provide it.  I readily admit it is impossible for me to become an expert in every aspect of the climate system.  This is the very reason I rely on the work of others to supplement what I do know.  However, it does strike me as incredibly arrogant to strike down the peer reviewed work of others without something to back it up other than 'common sense'.

 

Most peer reviewed literature that I personally don't agree with hinges on climate model simulations. I work with atmospheric models all the time and they are incredibly lacking in complexity compared to the real atmosphere. Climate models are no different. Most of the peer reviewed research uses such models. I am very suspect of their results. Its my opinion. That's all. You are free to believe

what you want. I don't call you names and you have a right to your opinion. I disagree with some scientists in other fields too not just climate science (although climate scientists have silenced anyone skeptical of CO2 driving the climate system).  I question everything not just in climate science but in other related fields too. That is how I learn and for some reason only in climate science do people get pissed off about it. I wonder why this is?? 

[Msalgado]

Why?  Because its the same tired thing over and over?  Thats great that you disagree with it, but simply saying you disagree with it is no better than saying "common sense".  Yes, models are less complex than the real atmosphere.  Hence, models.  

 

Ok, so you have problems with the research but simply pointing out that models are less complex doesn't do anything to help you prove your theory that its the sun or that the AMO is behind the arctic sea ice loss.  Unless I'm missing something here, all you're doing is providing a very weak correlation with the low levels of sunspots and the LIA.  You're not providing any tangible proof other than coincidence, or am I missing something?  On the other hand, study after study has provided quantified mechanisms for the period of time which do in fact show that SOME of it was solar but a lot of it was volcanic too.    Measurements - having nothing to do with models - of TSI certainly don't back up the theory that its the sun either.  Far from it.  

 

Casting doubt on models is far from providing proof of your theory.  Honestly - saying that models are less complex than the actual atmosphere might not even be classified as casting doubt as in reality its just stating the obvious.

[Harry]

Why?  Because its the same tired thing over and over?  Thats great that you disagree with it, but simply saying you disagree with it is no better than saying "common sense".  Yes, models are less complex than the real atmosphere.  Hence, models.  

 

Ok, so you have problems with the research but simply pointing out that models are less complex doesn't do anything to help you prove your theory that its the sun or that the AMO is behind the arctic sea ice loss.  Unless I'm missing something here, all you're doing is providing a very weak correlation with the low levels of sunspots and the LIA.  You're not providing any tangible proof other than coincidence, or am I missing something?  On the other hand, study after study has provided quantified mechanisms for the period of time which do in fact show that SOME of it was solar but a lot of it was volcanic too.    Measurements - having nothing to do with models - of TSI certainly don't back up the theory that its the sun either.  Far from it.  

 

Casting doubt on models is far from providing proof of your theory.  Honestly - saying that models are less complex than the actual atmosphere might not even be classified as casting doubt as in reality its just stating the obvious.

 

 

You need to just QUIT. I mean REALLY? Look at who you are talking to. Big deal you read something that says one thing where as he has training ( college educated ) on the subject matter. EVERYONE of you people always run and hide behind so called peer reviewed stuff you read that many of you do not even understand! It is laughable at best. When you or someone else gets a education ( degree ) on the matter then feel free to bark all you like.

 

Reasons why i stay out of these debates. If you are not educated on the subject matter then you shouldn't be debating/arguing with someone who IS acting like a know it all and least of all trying to be insulting. This is as bad as snow weenies who go at it with mets because the met is not calling for all the snow they want.

 

FWIW almost every meteorologist knows about the AMO. To see some of you people ( especially those that have been around here long enough posting about the weather ) debating that it exists is beyond words. And please dont give me the lip about some lame peer reviewed paper that says otherwise. One would think people on THIS forum would be smart enough to know how it works. ALL the sudden because a group of people who has a set agenda where a ton of $$$$ ( funding or for others to push their products ) is on the line is gonna now claim something doesn't exist that did KNOWING it is because it does not FIT into their argument and some of you are gonna buy right into it? I mean really?  I can understand someone who doesn't post about or follow the weather believing such garbage but someone who DOES? I don't think so.

 

Get a grip!

[ORH_wxman]

You need to just QUIT. I mean REALLY? Look at who you are talking to. Big deal you read something that says one thing where as he has training ( college educated ) on the subject matter. EVERYONE of you people always run and hide behind so called peer reviewed stuff you read that many of you do not even understand! It is laughable at best. When you or someone else gets a education ( degree ) on the matter then feel free to bark all you like.

 

Reasons why i stay out of these debates. If you are not educated on the subject matter then you shouldn't be debating/arguing with someone who IS acting like a know it all and least of all trying to be insulting. This is as bad as snow weenies who go at it with mets because the met is not calling for all the snow they want.

 

FWIW almost every meteorologist knows about the AMO. To see some of you people ( especially those that have been around here long enough posting about the weather ) debating that it exists is beyond words. And please dont give me the lip about some lame peer reviewed paper that says otherwise. One would think people on THIS forum would be smart enough to know how it works. ALL the sudden because a group of people who has a set agenda where a ton of $$$$ ( funding or for others to push their products ) is on the line is gonna now claim something doesn't exist that did KNOWING it is because it does not FIT into their argument and some of you are gonna buy right into it? I mean really?  I can understand someone who doesn't post about or follow the weather believing such garbage but someone who DOES? I don't think so.

 

Get a grip!

 

 

I didn't think anything he posted was out of line. And he didn't deny the existance of the AMO as an internal oscillation....some on here do, but he didn't. He even agreed that the AMO does affect sea ice loss/gain, but just said it isn't the primary dirver behind recent sea ice loss. There is nothing unreasonable about that.

 

So I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

[Harry]

I didn't think anything he posted was out of line. And he didn't deny the existance of the AMO as an internal oscillation....some on here do, but he didn't. He even agreed that the AMO does affect sea ice loss/gain, but just said it isn't the primary dirver behind recent sea ice loss. There is nothing unreasonable about that.

 

So I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

 

Read his posts again. I can imagine how insulting it could be for someone with background and training to have to deal with that. Yes that applies to you as i have seen the same happen to you by some of the same. He ( and certain others here ) acts like you guys are just amateurs without a clue and thus no formal training. Thus the problem. I know you are pretty laid back but most others could easily be insulted by such responses and they should be. As said it is like a weenie going at it with a met on here over a snowfall call. Oh well so and so ( Example JB )  said a foot is gonna fall so you don't know what you are talking about because you said i am only getting 6 inches or whatever. He is way out of line as is many others who constantly pull this in here.

[ORH_wxman]

Read his posts again. I can imagine how insulting it could be for someone with background and training to have to deal with that. Yes that applies to you as i have seen the same happen to you by some of the same. He ( and certain others here ) acts like you guys are just amateurs without a clue and thus no formal training. Thus the problem. I know you are pretty laid back but most others could easily be insulted by such responses and they should be. As said it is like a weenie going at it with a met on here over a snowfall call. Oh well so and so ( Example JB )  said a foot is gonna fall so you don't know what you are talking about because you said i am only getting 6 inches or whatever. He is way out of line as is many others who constantly pull this in here.

 

 

I read the posts...and I still don't see anything particularly wrong with what he said. The only specific nugget that could be considered somewhat erroneous is  "absolutely no reason to expect a recovery or even a cessation of the loss." in regards to arctic sea ice. There are recent peer reviewed papers that suggest the sea ice could stabilize or even slightly increase in the next decade or two in response to changes in the AMOC. I believe bluewave posted one in the sea ice thread. So there is evidence that this could occur...but that doesn't mean it will.

[Msalgado]

Read his posts again. I can imagine how insulting it could be for someone with background and training to have to deal with that. Yes that applies to you as i have seen the same happen to you by some of the same. He ( and certain others here ) acts like you guys are just amateurs without a clue and thus no formal training. Thus the problem. I know you are pretty laid back but most others could easily be insulted by such responses and they should be. As said it is like a weenie going at it with a met on here over a snowfall call. Oh well so and so ( Example JB )  said a foot is gonna fall so you don't know what you are talking about because you said i am only getting 6 inches or whatever. He is way out of line as is many others who constantly pull this in here.

 

You're awfully sure of my background and training based on my lack of a red tag.  For the record, I have a geoscience degree (and I'm actually starting a doctoral program in atmospheric sciences this fall).  But thanks for the lecture on knowing my place.  

[Harry]

I read the posts...and I still don't see anything particularly wrong with what he said. The only specific nugget that could be considered somewhat erroneous is  "absolutely no reason to expect a recovery or even a cessation of the loss." in regards to arctic sea ice. There are recent peer reviewed papers that suggest the sea ice could stabilize or even slightly increase in the next decade or two in response to changes in the AMOC. I believe bluewave posted one in the sea ice thread. So there is evidence that this could occur...but that doesn't mean it will.

 

Maybe i overreacted but his reply suggests otherwise. Any chance we can get tags for people who do have a background in this field and thus non met? I think it would really help in here.

 

 

You're awfully sure of my background and training based on my lack of a red tag.  For the record, I have a geoscience degree (and I'm actually starting a doctoral program in atmospheric sciences this fall).  But thanks for the lecture on knowing my place.  

 

 

You should try stating such then. If you are a meteorologist then feel free to PM a staff member so you can get the proper credentials aka Met tag. As a scientist you of all people should know better ( How to properly approach and converse with someone in the field )   but yeah i know you were on a fishing expedition. If you weren't you would have stated who/what you are when you involved yourself in the topic.

[blizzard1024]

Why?  Because its the same tired thing over and over?  Thats great that you disagree with it, but simply saying you disagree with it is no better than saying "common sense".  Yes, models are less complex than the real atmosphere.  Hence, models.  

 

Ok, so you have problems with the research but simply pointing out that models are less complex doesn't do anything to help you prove your theory that its the sun or that the AMO is behind the arctic sea ice loss.  Unless I'm missing something here, all you're doing is providing a very weak correlation with the low levels of sunspots and the LIA.  You're not providing any tangible proof other than coincidence, or am I missing something?  On the other hand, study after study has provided quantified mechanisms for the period of time which do in fact show that SOME of it was solar but a lot of it was volcanic too.    Measurements - having nothing to do with models - of TSI certainly don't back up the theory that its the sun either.  Far from it.  

 

Casting doubt on models is far from providing proof of your theory.  Honestly - saying that models are less complex than the actual atmosphere might not even be classified as casting doubt as in reality its just stating the obvious.

 

The Arctic sea ice loss correlates with a warm phase AMO now and likely the loss of summer sea ice in the 30s and 40s before the satellite monitoring era. The North Atlantic current flows up into the Arctic basin so it is plausible that the AMO phase is related to variations in the Arctic sea ice extent. This is really basic stuff. I can't prove it but the evidence based on what limited observations we have leads me to that hypothesis. You see....in meteorology.... we have to make a lot of decisions based on limited data and I am doing the same here. There is limited data especially before the satellite era. We are often wrong too and I may be wrong in this. Computer simulations are not data. Computer simulations are prone to error and bias and often used in the peer reviewed literature as "proof".The CAGW scenarios are based on computer model output. There is observational evidence that they are oversensitive to CO2 increases suggesting the feedbacks are too strong or even of the wrong sign. We don't know for sure. No one does. When I hear things like...this is "basic physics"...it isn't by any means. We are talking about a highly non-linear chaotic system that is poorly measured spatially and temporally relative to the real atmosphere. This is no way "basic physics". I do not dispute that there is positive TOA external radiative forcing from increased CO2. That is basic physics. How the atmosphere reacts to this is NOT basic physics. 

 

The Sun and its variations are also unknown as to how it impacts our climate IMO. If you narrow it to just TSI in the IR spectrum you can't explain the variations. Agreed. But the UV spectrum changes a lot more and that impacts the stratosphere. How does this feedback to the troposphere? Does it? Some suggest it does? How does this impact the climate? I don't have answers but I would hope someone is studying this. Unfortunately, this is  probably not true because the $$$$$ are in CO2 related climate changes. That is the truth. Politics are also into CO2 regulation as well. So I fear research in climate has been hijacked by politics and money hungry universities and research organizations that now can get tremendous funding. Case and point... they are blaming all the cold, snow and individual weather events like Sandy on global warming now!! It is getting crazy. Enough said. By the way, good luck on your PHD. I really mean that...no sarcasm here. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The AMO going negative for a month doesn't mean squat.

 

 

In the short term when the AMO has recently gone around neutral or slightly below there has been very little consistency as a correlation to CONUS temps.  The best correlation I have seen is to ENSO.

 

 

 

 

Other recent periods of the AMO going below .100C+.

2009 Jan-May.   -0.037   -0.142  -0.138  -0.109  -0.040

2009-10.  Dec-Feb:

0.023    0.0400.062 

2011 to 2012  October to March.

0.085  -0.048   -0.022-0.043    0.027    0.048

2013 to 2014.  December-Jan:

0.059-0.039

[blizzard1024]

 

The AMO going negative for a month doesn't mean squat.

 

 

In the short term when the AMO has recently gone around neutral or slightly below there has been very little consistency as a correlation to CONUS temps.  The best correlation I have seen is to ENSO.

 

 

 

 

Other recent periods of the AMO going below .100C+.

2009 Jan-May.   -0.037   -0.142  -0.138  -0.109  -0.040

2009-10.  Dec-Feb:

0.023    0.0400.062 

2011 to 2012  October to March.

0.085  -0.048   -0.022-0.043    0.027    0.048

2013 to 2014.  December-Jan:

0.059-0.039

 

I said it likely is a temporary blip downward. Plus the AMO does correlate well to the U.S temperatures especially the northeast U.S. See below...

 

 

Here is the correlation with ENSO....

 

 

Strongest is only in the Pacific northwest ...otherwise ENSO has much less correlation than AMO. 

[bluewave]

While this was the first official negative monthly value in a couple of years, the bigger story 

is probably the cold pool developing in the North Atlantic. The cooling of the North Atlantic

south of Greenland and Iceland was associated with a pressure pattern last summer

that was more favorable for the sea ice than the 2007-2012 period. CSU also used a proxy

for the AMOC to attempt to describe why the Atlantic hurricane season was so quiet.

We also can experience EPO blocking more often especially during the winter 

when the AMO dips like we are seeing this winter.

 

 

Excerpt: 

 

"We believe that much of the explanation for the lack of activity this year was due to a

significant weakening of our proxy of the Atlantic THC from April through June. Our
THC proxy signals of April-June 2013 indicate that the Atlantic THC (from both W.
ATL and E. ATL proxy signals) had the strongest drop and was the weakest overall of
any year since 1950. We hypothesize that this very large springtime collapse of the THC
set up broad-scale conditions that likely related to the unusually dry mid-level air,
stronger-than-normal mid-level subsidence and stronger than expected vertical wind
shear in the Atlantic MDR, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico."

 

http://typhoon.atmos...013/nov2013.pdf

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

That is some broad-brush correlations.

 

Why not compare the actual time series.  Over the last few years the AMO has followed ENSO.

 

With argo running for 11 years or so now.  Satellite data back to 1979 that can be used.  Obviously lots of buoys and ships OBS since the 1950s on.

 

Someone needs to set out to prove this. 

[blizzard1024]

While this was the first official negative monthly value in a couple of years, the bigger story 

is probably the cold pool developing in the North Atlantic. The cooling of the North Atlantic

south of Greenland and Iceland was associated with a pressure pattern last summer

that was more favorable for the sea ice than the 2007-2012 period. CSU also used a proxy

for the AMOC to attempt to describe why the Atlantic hurricane season was so quiet.

We also can experience EPO blocking more often especially during the winter 

when the AMO dips like we are seeing this winter.

 

 

Excerpt: 

 

"We believe that much of the explanation for the lack of activity this year was due to a

significant weakening of our proxy of the Atlantic THC from April through June. Our

THC proxy signals of April-June 2013 indicate that the Atlantic THC (from both W.

ATL and E. ATL proxy signals) had the strongest drop and was the weakest overall of

any year since 1950. We hypothesize that this very large springtime collapse of the THC

set up broad-scale conditions that likely related to the unusually dry mid-level air,

stronger-than-normal mid-level subsidence and stronger than expected vertical wind

shear in the Atlantic MDR, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico."

 

http://typhoon.atmos...013/nov2013.pdf

 

sst.png

 

AMO.gif

 

win.gif

 

This is very interesting. I too am not as concerned about an index as the actual cold pool 

that developed in the North Atlantic and also the cooling west of Africa.  Also the development

of that warm pool over the northeast Pacific. I have no proof but I recall a massive blocking

ridge that has been also ever present in the north Pacific for months now....and of course

this relates to the negative EPO phase. 

 

In both of these oscillations, the AMO and EPO which came first the oceanic signal or

atmospheric signal?  Using reanalysis data it might be possible to attempt an answer.