The following figure shows the AMO+PDO (black line above changed to red below) superimposed on the Arctic average annual temperature shown at the beginning of this document.
Note: I tried to provide an excerpt for readers of this website Appinsys in the post there about Arctic cycles, but gave up. The website is written in MS-Word HTML export which is quite frankly the worst possible way to publish a website. The amount of garbage code it creates that makes it impractical for sharing and pretty much ruins the effectiveness of the website for others that want to reference it with excerpts. Trying to paste even short excerpts into WUWT’s WordPress publisher caused massive visual entropy. So, all I can manage is this sentence and image above.
I hope he’ll take a cue from this and use a real publishing platform (WordPress, Blogger, Typepad, anything but MS-Word) designed for the web so we can help spread the word more often. Good works shouldn’t be saddled by bad web publishing systems.
Here’s the link – http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm
UPDATE: Well, maybe not so good after all. Bob Tisdale writes in comments:
The AMO+PDO graph strikes again. It is a prime example of the adage “correlation does not mean causation”, because the AMO+PDO graph is meaningless. You can’t add the AMO and the PDO. I’ll cut and paste a comment I made on an earlier thread here at WUWT to save myself some time.
Unfortunately, the PDO and AMO are not similar datasets and cannot be added or averaged. The AMO is created by detrending North Atlantic SST anomalies, while the PDO is the product of a principal component analysis North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. Basically, the PDO represents the pattern of the North Pacific SST anomalies that are similar to those created by El Niño and La Niña events. If one were to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and compare it to the PDO, the two curves (smoothed with a 121-month filter) appear to be inversely related:
http://i52.tinypic.com/fvi92b.jpg
Thanks Bob for teaching us all something. Not being an ocean data specialist, I wasn’t aware in the difference in datasets. Hopefully this exposure of this issue here will prompt wider understanding that while they seem similar, you can’t appropriately combine the two datasets – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On the other hand AMO can be derived from the North Atlantic currents driver:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD2.htm
Here is an extract from the website:
NASA’s James Hansen (Hansen et al 2007 “Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE” Clim Dyn (2007) 29:661–696
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf
observed that the climate model was not correctly simulating the 1930s-1940s warm period in the global average temperature: “It may be fruitless to search for an external forcing to produce peak warmth around 1940. It is shown below that the observed maximum is due almost entirely to temporary warmth in the Arctic. Such Arctic warmth could be a natural oscillation (Johannessen et al. 2004), possibly unforced. Indeed, there are few forcings that would yield warmth largely confined to the Arctic. Candidates might be soot blown to the Arctic from industrial activity at the outset of World War II, or solar forcing of the Arctic Oscillation (Shindell et al. 1999; Tourpali et al. 2005) that is not captured by our present model. Perhaps a more likely scenario is an unforced ocean dynamical fluctuation with heat transport to the Arctic and positive feedbacks from reduced sea ice.”
So Hansen asserts that the previous warming cycle was natural (perhaps “solar forcing of the Arctic Oscillation”), but the current warming cycle is due to CO2. And yet the current “global” warming has also been “largely confined to the Arctic”.
What is it that is supposed to made from this? The indexes correlate with arctic temps? They darn well better or someone is not doing their math correctly!
The assumption (by some AGW skeptics) of course is that the cycle will repeat and we’re now going to see a period of cooling that would bring us back to previous baselines, wiping out the period of warming we’ve been through. As a side-effect of this period of cooling of course, the Arctic sea ice should begin to recover (according to Joe Bastardi et. al), and the whole thing will cycle back down.
This is exactly why the next few years will be so interesting, as we are at a point where that cycling back down should begin in earnest. If it doesn’t, and we see 2010-2019 as warmer than 2000-2009, and then 2020-2029 as warmer on avergage than 2010-2019, and the arctic sea ice continues its long-term downward trend, what then my skeptical friends?
“…Arctic average annual temperature shown at the beginning of this document.”
Which document?
“Alan does some great work over there…”
Over where? Looks like something is missing. Or maybe the link belongs at the top of post. Is a puzzlement.
Wyatt, M.G.; Kravtsov, S.; & Tsonis, A.A. (2011). Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1071-8.
No free version available, but see:
1) https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/WKT_poster.pdf
2) http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=Atlantic+Multidecadal+Oscillation+and+Northern+Hemisphere+Wyatt
Not saying it’s perfect, but it does tie a “60 year bundle” that many WUWT readers might appreciate.
I just wanted to ask the person who had rated this article at 1 star, why? What is wrong with this post? And what, if anything, is incorrect? I have no observations to the value of this article, but I hate trolls. I was the second person to rate it after some anonymous troll rated it 1 star. To me this post provides good clear information. If I knew it was wrong (like our anonymous troll apparently does!) I would have posted what I thought was wrong. Our gutless troll rated it 1 star.
WTF? WUWT?
Ladies and Gents, please rate the posts when you have read them. The trolls are downgrading the ratings before anyone sensible is coming along. And probably before they have even cared to read the information contained.
[Reply: Anthony knows the identity of that individual.☺ ~dbs, mod.]
REPLY: Actually, no I don’t. The rating system does not show who votes how, as it should be. – Anthony
I noticed the graphs on the link show cooling starting before the first atomic bomb was set off. The reason I note this is that I read a post at wuwt a short while ago that implied the cooling seen from the 40’s to the 70’s was from atomic bomb testing. At the time, I thought that was a fair point. Now I think the paper that said that is wrong.
I recently added just the AMO to a global average info-graphic I made since the correlation was suggestive of future cooling:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/16ifevq.jpg
You do realize that both PDO and AMO are essentially temperature indexes?
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index is:
… and as for the AMO:
Furthermore temperature anomalies strongly correlated over large distances. According to NASA GISS:
Therefore it stands to reason that the arctic temperature would be correlated with temperature indexes from the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
R. Gates says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm
What is it that is supposed to made from this? The indexes correlate with arctic temps? They darn well better or someone is not doing their math correctly!
What then?
Well then, my skeptical friend we will have seen 20 years of more honest and accurate studies which will we have allowed us to continue our scientific endeavours to find the truth and put Hansen et al behind bars for ‘adjusting’ the data at a time when we needed to be more and better informed.
The draft WUWT Oceanic Oscillation Page (Password: WUWT);
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/oceanic-oscillation/
continues to develop, but I am still troubled by the dearth of real-time graphs on the AMO. It is almost like NOAA and NASA are ignoring it…
If you have any suggestions for additional reasonably current and regularly updated graphs/graphics for inclusion on the Oceanic Oscillation Page, please post them below.
NikFromNYC,
I greatly admire that chart, and appreciate any additions. When the true trend line is shown, it becomes clear that there is no abnormal warming.
R.Gates writes “what then my skeptical friends?”
Data is data. If the data goes as you suggest it might, then we will have to try and interpret what it means. I suppose it will mean that the warmaholics will have, at long last, some data to support their hypothesis.
I made a better image of his arctic warming map that shades the continents:
http://i45.tinypic.com/n6szgh.jpg
“I greatly admire that chart, and appreciate any additions. When the true trend line is shown, it becomes clear that there is no abnormal warming.”
Here is my updated payload of info-graphics:
Denial: http://oi53.tinypic.com/2zi9d2e.jpg
Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/16ifevq.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi54.tinypic.com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/i56fsg.jpg
R. Gates says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm
What then? That depends on what is going on in the Arctic vs Temperate Zones. If this is a zero-sum game, it spells natural disaster for the N. Hemisphere. Something that must be borne in mind: The Arctic vs the N.H. Temperate Zone, degree vs degree, latitude range vs latitude range, is not equal area. So, if the Arctic warms 2C, and the N. H. Temperate Zone cools 2C, the N.H. Subtropics remain neutral, then that is anything but a zero-sum game, and the N.Hemisphere has cooled.
The false image of a hotter than ever Arctic (for which there was scant data) ploy by Hansens GISS was atrociously misleading.
Jim Cripwell says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm
R.Gates writes “what then my skeptical friends?”
Data is data. If the data goes as you suggest it might, then we will have to try and interpret what it means. I suppose it will mean that the warmaholics will have, at long last, some data to support their hypothesis.
_____
I think there is plenty of data to support the probabililty that AGW is occurring now, though, as I am only 75% convinced, so a bit more data would be nice. Never enough data for we warmaholics, and you’ll often times find us consuming large amounts of data in private, in the mornings before lunch, and then as a night cap before we pass out. Some of us have even begun forming support groups, that begin with…”Hi, my name is R. Gates, and I’m a warmaholic…”
The AMO+PDO graph strikes again. It is a prime example of the adage “correlation does not mean causation”, because the AMO+PDO graph is meaningless. You can’t add the AMO and the PDO. I’ll cut and paste a comment I made on an earlier thread here at WUWT to save myself some time.
Unfortunately, the PDO and AMO are not similar datasets and cannot be added or averaged. The AMO is created by detrending North Atlantic SST anomalies, while the PDO is the product of a principal component analysis North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. Basically, the PDO represents the pattern of the North Pacific SST anomalies that are similar to those created by El Niño and La Niña events. If one were to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and compare it to the PDO, the two curves (smoothed with a 121-month filter) appear to be inversely related:
http://i52.tinypic.com/fvi92b.jpg
REPLY: Thanks Bob, we all learned something today – added to main body – Anthony
“WordPress, Blogger, Typepad, …”
I agree. Once you use WordPress, it is really hard to use other platforms because WordPress (free) makes it so easy to build and maintain a web site.
Roy Uk: I don’t rate posts so it wasn’t me who gave this one one star But you asked, “What is wrong with this post? And what, if anything, is incorrect?”
Scroll up to my May 22, 2011 at 1:18 pm comment. You can’t add the AMO+PDO, which means the graph is meaningless.
Thanks Bob. I appreciate your input, as I already said I read this and came up a blank. The post seems ok, but you have corrected me and I will learn.
But my comment still stands. There are a lot of anonymous trolls coming on this site rating the posts low, leaving no useful information as to why.
I still hate trolls.
Thanks for including the comment in the update, Anthony.
What observational data exactly does support the CO2 AGW hypothesis? That would include the venerable tropical “hot spot”. Thus far the most common meme seems to be since it has warmed, CO2 increased, therefore CO2 is the cause of late 20th century warming.
R. Gates says:
May 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Jim Cripwell says:
May 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I think there is plenty of data to support the probabililty that AGW is occurring now, though, as I am only 75% convinced, so a bit more data would be nice.
Here’s some more data for you. You’ll find this one a particularly compelling proof of the directly controlling influence of CO2 on global temperature from the palaeo record.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Please note: the blue dots are the data. The red and orange lines are models.
“…while they seem similar, you can’t appropriately combine the two datasets…”
Hah! That’s what they said about Peanut Butter and Chocolate! And we all know where that went… Straight to my waistline.