The November AMO index goes negative, first time since 1996

Joe D’Aleo reports via email that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Index has gone negative for this past month, see the graph below:

Source:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

This is the first time the November value has been negative since about 1996. It appears the down cycle has started. This portends a cooler period, especially winters.

The Monthly value plot also shows the down cycle in progress, though this one is only updated to 2009:

File:Amo timeseries 1856-present.svg

The AMO index is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe such as North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel rainfall and North American and European summer climate. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.

Matt Vooro writes in this document: AMO, THE KEY GLOBAL CLIMATE INDICATOR

The main climate indicator (in my opinion in the near term) is likely going to be the cool AMO, cool PDO. ENSO events and the changing polar jet stream which swings more often now north before coming south or heading east, bringing cold air to most of North America, and specially the western half and subsequently east, as the our climate moves from west to east.

The graph below shows the relationship between AMO and GLOBAL [ land and marine] TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES [Hadcrut 3]. AMO appears to be like a thermostat or predictor of global temperatures. ENSO events if moderate or strong seem to modify, amplify or over-ride the AMO effects.

There are interesting times ahead.

About these ads

157 thoughts on “The November AMO index goes negative, first time since 1996

  1. It surely looks like those dips in the AMO index correspond to the cooling periods of the Earth’s climate. It seems like we will be revisiting another 1970’s style cooling in due course.

  2. The climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means and the oceans are a continuation of the sun by other means.
    ==============

  3. Just glancing at the long-term graph is appears
    1) this would be an unusually short length of time for the positive part of the cycle.
    2) every positive cycle has occasional negative swings.

    In light of these facts, it seems a bit premature to be claiming “It appears the down cycle has started” based on one month of data. Let’s see how it looks after a few months or a year.

  4. The AMO is headed south.

    The ENSO headed south.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/mid-october-2011-sst-anomaly-update/

    And maybe way south.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/ncep-ensemble-forecast-shows-deep-la-nina-coming/

    I read somewhere that an estimated 220,000 children starved to death last year. One of the “root causes” of the revolutions in the mid-east was the high price of food. When you can’t feed your children, it tends to make one restive. And we turn some 40% of our corn production into fuel and burn it even though we have enough fossil fuels for maybe a couple of hundred years.

    What will be the toll next year?

    Sometimes I get discouraged.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin.)

  5. Well, looks like all of the various indices are pointing toward cold. And the prospect of having a weak solar cycle at the same time is not a comforting thought, either, based on the apparently response to such events in the past.

    Maybe the politicians can just declare victory on Global Warming and let us keep our money now.

  6. Why would the latest AMO warm cycle be so short compared to the other two warm cycles on the chart? Perhaps this is just a “blip” and warmth will resume for a few more years(?). I hope not, but it looks awfully short on that chart if it is indeed turning cold now.

  7. The question I would like answered is whether the “interesting times” mean drought in California due to cooler – and thus drier – air masses moving over the state, or wetter times with heavier snow in the mountains, thanks to orographic effects.

  8. We’re doomed I tell you. The Ice Age cometh.

    Please send me $2 trillion of taxpayer money to research the devastating climate impact and formulate plans for mitigation so I can save the planet. Unless, of course, you wish to be entombed in a glacier extending from California to New York.

  9. This is similar to the dip in the mid 1950s after the second nina winter of 1955-1956. The amo will recover for a while in 2013-2016 ( should be neutral to negative for 2012) then go into its cold cycle after that. Dr William Gray has had this cycle pegged since the late 1970s when I saw him make his forecast on this matter linking it to the increase in hurricanes.

    The turning of the amo along with the pdo forms the heart of my challenge to the Agenda driven AGW crowd to “take the test” ..that temps by objective satellite standards will return to the late 1970s value by 2030. Of course they want no part of it since it will render their god of CO2 as useless. Its part of the reason they are so vitriolic in attacks, the fear they will be exposed for some of them, and others, that already know what is coming.

    BTW the cold pdo/amo la nina usually means a warmer than normal Jan/Feb in much of the east as the sinking in the means in the areas where the amo is cold, combined with the nina, leads to higher than normal pressures off the south atlantic coast and more southwest flow than normal in the east. Bad news: a late spring again for much of the north and east, but less tornadic activity. Studying all this to counter the warmingista’s has side benefits

    note ( check out winters of mid 70s with la nina cold pdo/cold amo, but when the warm signal came with the 76-77, 77-78 el nino it was katie bar the door. Double ninas followed by a weak to moderate el nino in cold pdos can produce the nasty so many of us have earned after the past few decades and having to listen to the agenda driven drivel of the agw crowd

  10. It would be interesting to see that monthly AMO graph’s rise and fall periods (not absolute values) be compared to the temperature series we have. You see the 1940’s warm period, and the huge peak in 1998, and just looking at it qualitatively it looks like when the AMO rises and falls in trend domains, so too does the global temperature anomaly. Which, could mean some really terrible winters…

  11. Obviously of the “trapped” heat deep in the ocean is pushing the cold water up via displacement
    and the increasing CO2 air concentration is sinking more and more heat into the deep ocean which means AGW causes cold until it doesn’t.

  12. “That’s the problem with natural cycles – they are cycles, so please ignore.

    Never fear, IPCC models will manipulate this problem away.”

    Official Spokesperson for The Team

  13. So . . . Hansen will be quoted as saying “The climate is simply changing so fast now because of human activity, we’ve brought the next ice age about. Don’t take comfort, though, it’ll only last about 2 weeks, then the climate will literally turn into Hell on Earth. Birds actually catching fire mid-air, unable to outrun climate change, oceans hot enough to cook the fish in them, only by acting immediately can we prevent . . . (blah blah blah).” (sarc/off)

    Seriously though, doesn’t this portend the end of climate alarmism? Will anybody continue to listen to them, after the oncoming series of cold winters and potentially moderately or non-warm summers? Forget the AMO; watch the sunspot number. Looks to me like we’re in for the Eddy minimum. Hope you brought a coat.

  14. Durr says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    “Unlike the AGW side, most here probably hope for warmth and think this sucks.”

    My thoughts exactly. I really, really want to deny this. I wanted more warming.

    Stupid useless CO2.

  15. Not to question his statement but here I go anyway. Using the data source cited below the graphic, the AMO has been negative in Nov 1999 and Nov 2000.
    It was also negative in part of 2002 and 2009. Since AMO seems to be more of a 30 yr cycle and due to the fact that there have been several short negative periods of AMO during longer term cycles of positive AMO, I’d be a bit hesitant to say we are on the downhill side of positive AMOs just yet…maybe around 2020 it starts to look more interesting. Then we can start thinking -PDO and -AMO = Brrrrrr…..

  16. Now all we have to do is figure out how the monotonically increasing CO2 concentration is causing the AMO to oscillate. And by we I mean the Luddites.

  17. Can someone overlay the AMO and the temperature record, so I can get a handle on this?

    So as the AMO goes negative it is getting colder (1950-1970 was cooler), but during the negative phase the temperature is actually reversing and getting warmer (1980 – 2000 was warmer). So this initial dive into negative should be combined with cooling.

    .

  18. Makes me think of that Tibetan tree ring study that was posted about yesterday. The one that said we would cool off until 2068.
    Interesting times indeed.

  19. DRE says:
    December 9, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    “Now all we have to do is figure out how the monotonically increasing CO2 concentration is causing the AMO to oscillate. And by we I mean the Luddites.”

    According to the best mainstream climate science, CO2 concentrations have various character traits. The present concentration is moving into its “shy” character. That is the reason that the AMO is headed down. She reacts to shyness with frigidity.

  20. Joe /Anthony

    You may want to check your records again about who really wrote the original article ,AMO, THE KEY GLOBAL CLIMATE INDICATOR back in July 2009

  21. Here is the AMO versus the RSS/UAH lower troposphere temps. Certainly, a semi-interesting close relationship.

    The AMO (which is a detrended index) versus Hadcrut3 on the same detrended basis. Also, a semi-interesting close relationship.

    And here is last weeks numbers for the AMO (-0.111C) , ENSO (-1.13C) and global SSTs (+0.019C) and where I think they are going over the next 6 months.

  22. Jon Jewett says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    …..I read somewhere that an estimated 220,000 children starved to death last year. One of the “root causes” of the revolutions in the mid-east was the high price of food. When you can’t feed your children, it tends to make one restive. And we turn some 40% of our corn production into fuel and burn it even though we have enough fossil fuels for maybe a couple of hundred years…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That probably would have been me.
    A quick and dirty look at the politics (with much left out) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#comment-767575

  23. Great research (grant) opportunities for anyone who wants to study how man-made CO2 emissions caused the AMO to go negative.

    Or you can Hide The Decline, find The Missing Heat, and pre-declare 2012 though 2021 The Hottest Decade in the History of the Solar System! Could even turn into a BBC miniseries!

  24. Mike Smith says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    We’re doomed I tell you. The Ice Age cometh.

    Please send me $2 trillion of taxpayer money to research the devastating climate impact and formulate plans for mitigation so I can save the planet…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Nah, They did that study in the 1970’s. That is why the big money is moving out of the USA, and EU and headed for warm sunny climes and taking their manufacturing with them.

    Politics and Science time lines SEE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/in-china-there-are-no-hockey-sticks/#comment-824265

  25. The Monthly value plot also shows the down cycle in progress, though this one is only updated to 2009:
    ———
    Assuming the AMO is a real cycle the we would expect some degree of periodicity.

    Comparing this peak with the last 2 peaks it’s clear we are only half way through the current peak.

    So to say the current drop off is a sign of the end of the AMO is wrong. The current dropoff is just random variation. Which is very clear if you look at the rest if the series.

  26. “Seriously though, doesn’t this portend the end of climate alarmism?”

    Not until they run out of your money.

  27. The graph below shows the relationship between AMO and GLOBAL [ land and marine] TEMPERATURE ANOAMLIES [Hadcrut 3]. AMO appears to be like a thermostat or predictor of global temperatures.
    ———–
    And the graph shows no relationship.

    Drawing a couple of trend lines on very noisy data over a short time span proves nothing whatsoever.

    I could plot women’s skirt lengths and global temperatures on the same graph and maybe get “proof” that womens fashion affects climate or that women prefer being cold. It would be just as valid as what is presented here by Joe.

  28. Bill Illis says:
    December 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    “……….and where I think they are going over the next 6 months.”
    ============
    Bill, i always pay careful attention to your posts.
    Keep them coming.
    I also like this:

    ” When men speak of the future, the Gods laugh.”
    Proverb, Chinese

    We, like it or not, are only along for the ride.

  29. I’ll second what Durr said, and add that cooling really really sucks for anyone who was thinking of planting a small vineyard in one of the northern states. Oh well, time to buy a ski-doo.

  30. LazyTeenager says:
    December 9, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    “…So to say the current drop off is a sign of the end of the AMO is wrong. The current dropoff is just random variation. Which is very clear if you look at the rest if the series.”

    That’s very Skeptical of you, LT. How does it feel?

  31. ShrNfr says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    This is usually a 30 year leading indicator of next ice age articles in the “popular” press.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    We are fine with a cold PDO, AMO, La Nina and lethargic sun… As long is we do not get some major volcanoes added to the mix.

    YELLOWSTONE VOLCANO: “During the month of November 2011, 51 earthquakes were located in the Yellowstone National Park region… No swarms were recorded in November.

    Yellowstone earthquake activity continues at relatively low background levels.

    Slow subsidence of the caldera, which began in early 2010, continues….. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/activity/index.php

    56 volcanoes that had confirmed eruptions during 2011 so far: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm

    Alaska/Russian: http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/avoreport.php?view=kaminfo
    Icelandic earthquakes: http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception 2007

    ABSTRACT
    [the usual CAGW get out of peer review card]
    The community of climatologists predicts a progressive global warming [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report—Climate Change, 2007. The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge] that will not be interrupted by a glacial inception for the next 50 ka [Berger and Loutre, 2002. An exceptionally long Interglacial ahead? Science 297, 1287–1288]. These predictions are based on continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions…..

    To assess the potential climate development without human interference, we analyse climate proxy records from Europe and the North Atlantic of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 (423–362 ka BP), an interval when insolation variations show a strong linear correlation with those of the recent past and the future. This analysis suggests that the insolation minimum at 397 ka BP, which provides the best available analogue to the present insolation minimum, terminated interglacial conditions in Europe. At that time, tundra–steppe vegetation spread in Central Europe and pine forests dominated in the eastern Mediterranean region. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    Gives you the warm fuzzies doesn’t it.

  32. Don’t sweat it… the models will have predicted this as soon as they finish tweaking them to match what happened. It will certainly be Worse Than We Thought™… and in the end we’ll all still be “deniers” and we still won’t get to eat lunch at the cool table.

  33. AMO, PDO, ENSO, sunspots all pointing to nasty cold front on the way.

    In the meantime, the IPCC meme of late is to expect a “pause” in the warming for the next 20 or 30 years. As with their past predictions of global temperature…looks like they might be high yet again.

  34. Gail Combs says:
    December 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    “Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. ”

    WIIIIILLLLMAAAA!!

  35. Tim Folkerts at12:49pm

    Excellent point. There are several slight dips below in the prior positive regions.

  36. “it could be a bit chilly this winter”

    Does this mean I should avoid raising energy prices or push to increase them in hopes of reducing global warming?

    It’s a tough call and I can’t decide.

    Our state agencies all say raise them but I worry they may all be nuts.

    Oh what to do.

  37. Tim Folkerts says:
    December 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    Just glancing at the long-term graph is appears
    1) this would be an unusually short length of time for the positive part of the cycle.
    2) every positive cycle has occasional negative swings.

    In light of these facts, it seems a bit premature to be claiming “It appears the down cycle has started” based on one month of data. Let’s see how it looks after a few months or a year.

    To a stock market chartist:

    The immediately preceding years have made a topping pattern (compare to the 1950s-60s).
    The upward trendline across the lows from 1993 on has been decisively broken.
    The rise in 2010 made a lower high (a failed rally).
    The fall in 2011 has made a lower low (lower than three preceding lows).

  38. I’m with the dubious on this one; it seems we’re only about half-way thru the warm half of the sine wave. No real flip till sometime in the ’20s.

  39. Jakehig says:
    December 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    Next up……Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cooling??

    Could be–some people here have asserted that CO2 actually cools the atmosphere. Since warmists are really control freaks, maybe that clutch at that straw.

  40. The Pacific must be pretty cold too right now. In Sydney, we are getting max temps of between 3 and 8 Centigrade BELOW the average for this time of year. This is for the past two weeks, and projected for the next 10 days at least. A whole month with a maximum temperature average of 5 Centigrade below average, and I am sure we’ll be told it’s the warmest year EVAH once again!

  41. I’m with the dubious on this one; it seems we’re only about half-way thru the warm half of the sine wave. No real flip till sometime in the ’20s.

    We probably aren’t likely to go negative on an annual average basis for a while but it is reasonable that we will start seeing an increasing number of negative months but even the article title is wrong. Following the link to the data, I see negative November values for 1999 and 2000. But in any case for the month of November, in the past 20 years there have been only 6 negative Novembers. In the 20 years previous to that they were all negative.

  42. ” As Oceans & Seas salinity was increasing day by day by dumping concentrates back by the DESALTERS, INTERNATIONAL DESALINATION ASSOCIATION ( IDA ) instructed Heavy Duty Desalination Designers & Operaters to include ZERO DISHARGE SYSTEMS ( ZDS ). This is because of my voices to Internet media, but printed media not mentioned
    So Air conditioning of Mother EARTH IS WELL PROGRESSING BY CAPTURING CONC: DEICERS FROM HEAVY DUTY DESALTERS. Welcome to visit Sarva Kala Vallabhan Group & AIR CONDITIONING OF MOTHER EARTH & COMMENT”

  43. I agree with the others who have suggested that it is too early to say that the AMO has turned negative and that what we are seeing this month (and may be for the mext few months) is nothing more than a temporary dip in what is still part of a positive cycle..

    If the AMO has truly turned negative then the present positive cycle seems extremely short and it would be interesting to ascertain why it turned out to be so short.

  44. Ummm….looking at that graph it seems to have gone sharply down like this a lot of times and sharply up a lot of times too without climate changes of any note.
    Wake me up when you get something exciting.

    Cheers
    Peter

  45. My bones are too old and brittle to go back to the 70s. Block heaters, battery blankets, burst pipes, engines left running in fear of re-start risk. Doh! GK

  46. Jer0me says:
    December 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    The Pacific must be pretty cold too right now…

    You are right – sea surface temperatures are more than 1 °C cooler than normal over most of the equatorial Pacific east of 160°W. But around Northern Australia they are relatively warm.

    In November the area-averaged Australian maximum temperature was close to normal, with an anomaly of −0.08 °C (29th coolest of 62 years).

    However the BOM national outlook December 2011 to February 2012 shows the following:
    • Southeastern Australia more likely to have warmer days.
    • Northern tropics and southern WA more likely to have warmer days and nights.
    • Southeastern Queensland, northeastern NSW and central Australia more likely to have cooler days:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml

    Long way to go yet but the BOM models haven’t started too well:

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/sydneys-coldest-start-to-summer-in-50-years-20111205-1oe0i.html

    Funny also how Weatherzone’s outlook in above article differ to that of the BOM:

    “Mr Fisher also said summer would be cooler than average because of the influence of the La Nina weather cycle, which brings with it greater chance of clouds, rain and humidity.”

    Whereas the BOM say:

    “A persistently warm Indian Ocean is the main driver behind this outlook, cool conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean associated with the La Niña are also contributing.”

    A bit of a stable following? Or is the BOM sticking with their horse with an saver bet on the outsider?

  47. On a related topic, has anyone else noticed that the midwest is unusually cold now? The cool air reached New Orleans several days ago and temperatures there are in the range usually experienced no earlier than the last week of December. Looks like the winter of 76-77.

  48. I saw some CO2 molecules pumping iron and watching Terminator. They are determined to defeat the AMO.
    Another was trying to ring Al Gore but the phone kept ringing out.

  49. It really annoys the heck out of me to know that I won’t be around to see what the climate does in the last half of this century…curse our short human lifespans!

  50. >>Jenn Oates says: December 9, 2011 at 11:23 pm
    >>It really annoys the heck out of me to know that I won’t be around to see what
    >>the climate does in the last half of this century…curse our short human lifespans!

    I’ve thought the same, but a 1,000 year life-span might be boring. But it would be nice if you could just wake up for a couple of days every two years or so. We might then be able to send a mission to Alpha Centauri too….

    .

  51. richard verney says:
    December 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm
    I agree with the others who have suggested that it is too early to say that the AMO has turned negative and that what we are seeing this month (and may be for the mext few months) is nothing more than a temporary dip in what is still part of a positive cycle..

    Overall it seems to have been a mild winter so far in western Europe.

  52. Jenn Oates,

    Yeah, I feel just the same. My son, studying mech engineering like I did, is sceptical. He promises to keep an open mind and consider the facts and think cause and effect, not the personas or the politics. He knows that if you can’t history match a model it might as well be thrown in the recycle folder. It’s good to know he will try to consider it all properly.

  53. Ralph says:
    December 10, 2011 at 2:27 am

    >>Jenn Oates says: December 9, 2011 at 11:23 pm
    >>It really annoys the heck out of me to know that I won’t be around to see what
    >>the climate does in the last half of this century…curse our short human lifespans!

    I’ve thought the same, but a 1,000 year life-span might be boring. But it would be nice if you could just wake up for a couple of days every two years or so. We might then be able to send a mission to Alpha Centauri too….
    ====================
    book by Phillip jose Farmer, called Dayworld, overcrowded world- people filed into storages- allowed out for one day a week. rather a good book:-)

  54. Tim Folkerts says:
    December 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm
    Just glancing at the long-term graph is appears
    1) this would be an unusually short length of time for the positive part of the cycle.
    2) every positive cycle has occasional negative swings.

    In light of these facts, it seems a bit premature to be claiming “It appears the down cycle has started” based on one month of data. Let’s see how it looks after a few months or a year.

    I think the down cycle has started, but we’ll see some more el ninos lift the AMO back to positive for a while yet. Global OHC will decrease as a result, though with the way the ARGO figures are being manipulated, it might not be obvious.

  55. Joe Bastardi says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    The turning of the amo along with the pdo forms the heart of my challenge to the Agenda driven AGW crowd to “take the test” ..that temps by objective satellite standards will return to the late 1970s value by 2030. Of course they want no part of it since it will render their god of CO2 as useless. Its part of the reason they are so vitriolic in attacks, the fear they will be exposed for some of them, and others, that already know what is coming.

    ———
    Joe, you may be a reasonably good weather forecaster, but horrible at understanding longer term forcings going on that are changing the nature of the short-term patterns and variability you are looking at. Your primary failure is your inability to fully recognize the full effects that a 40% increase in CO2 and large increases in other greenhouse gases are having. Certainly without these anthropogenic forcings, the natural short-term cycles and medium-term cycles are driven by solar influences and reflected in ocean cycles such as the AMO, and these can be considered noise riding on top of the longer-term Milankovitch forcings. But these are now also noise riding on top of the longer-term anthropogenic greenhouse forcing. You can’t have the highest CO2 levels in 800,000+ years without some effect. I would strongly suspect you will be wrong in your 2030 challenge, as the overall trend of temps between now and then will be higher, not lower, and the anthropogenic forcing from ever increasing CO2 will be the primary reason.

  56. The warm part of the cycle may have been truncated early by the quiet sun.

    Low solar activity causes more meridional jets, more cloudiness, less energy into the oceans for net system cooling.

    I have a couple of charts from Wetterzentrale for the northen hemisphere showing temperatures for the same date and time where it is clear that there has been cooling over the period with a shift of the isotherms equatorward. It is a Word document. How can I post that here ?

  57. The years 1979 until ~2012 are the end of the 1650 until 2000 Sun warming cycle. This warm peak is now our base line temperature standard [due to satellite data].

    As per http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif , the heat is leaving the oceans. The warm areas were, at one time, 5C above “normal”. When the La Nina gets under full “steam”, watch and listen to the graphs/moaning of the AGWs saying that warming is causing cooling [sarc].

    The AMO and the PDO are both driven by the Sun. Now that the Sun has gone quiet, watch the “cold” phases become extreme verses the 2000 warm peak.

  58. The bottom graph above is marked 2005-2009. In fact it goes up to May 2009.

    Why did it stop in May 2009 when both AMO and Hadcrut 3 values are current up to November and October 2011 respectively?

    Could it be because the linear trends at May 2009 were respectively 6.5 and 5.4 times more steeply downward than they are if you use 2005-present?

  59. I’m still having trouble getting this right, when the AMO is UP are the Hem Lines UP? And when the AMO is DOWN are the Hem Lines DOWN? Does the AMO have anything to do with the number of bikinis seen on the beach? And heels, are heels on High Heels thicker or thiner when the AMO goes up? My guess is they’re thicker when the AMO is DOWN since there’s more ice on the sidewalks. I always wondered how women figured out when to change these things.

  60. R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Joe Bastardi says:
    December 9, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    The turning of the amo along with the pdo forms the heart of my challenge to the Agenda driven AGW crowd to “take the test” ..that temps by objective satellite standards will return to the late 1970s value by 2030. Of course they want no part of it since it will render their god of CO2 as useless. Its part of the reason they are so vitriolic in attacks, the fear they will be exposed for some of them, and others, that already know what is coming.

    ———
    Joe, you may be a reasonably good weather forecaster, but horrible at understanding longer term forcings going on that are changing the nature of the short-term patterns and variability you are looking at. Your primary failure is your inability to fully recognize the full effects that a 40% increase in CO2 and large

    Can R. Gates explain to me how it is that the CO2 proportion of the atmosphere ie. much less than one per cent of the atmosphere and then has the out of proportion effect on “global warming” considering that all the current satellite data is going cooler?

  61. I would agree with TALLBLOKE and Joe Bastardi that given the past history, the AMO is not likely to stay negative with the next inevitable El Ninos (they happen in the cold PDO too) popping it positive but that a DOWNTREND has likely begun.

    Most phases warm and cold last 30 years. That would take us past 2020. Many commenters saw that from the graph. Stephen Wilde speculates that a low sun may truncate the warm phase.

    JB and I had speculated we would see a negative AMO this winter like we did in early 2009, year 2 of the last two year La Nina. I was a little surprised how early it dropped.

  62. One of the issues is whether the multidecadal oscillations are driven by something else. As they are out of synch with each other it makes it difficult to see whether there is a larger primary source driving them. Since we do not know what causes them we really can’t say with certainty how long the cycles should be.

    Going back to the information on the TSI, we may find out how much it drives the cycles with this AMO. If it goes back up for a while, as Joe Bastardi indicates above, we could assume that while the sun is the primary driver it has a delayed influence on the cycles. If the AMO stays down we would see that the sun would seem to have a more direct influence on the cycles.

  63. John Wootton says:
    December 10, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “Can R. Gates explain to me how it is that the CO2 proportion of the atmosphere ie. much less than one per cent of the atmosphere and then has the out of proportion effect on “global warming” considering that all the current satellite data is going cooler?”
    ———
    You are confusing short-term noise and long-term forcing. Suggest you read:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/796.full

    And:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

    (all 8 parts)

    It is more likely the earth will be warmer on average in 2030 rather than colder than it is now. The shorter term variations in the AMO and other short term cycles are noise riding on this. They may mask or dampen the effects of CO2, but they can’t negate it. If, as is possible, we enter into a multi-decadal period of a quiet solar cycle (which is the basis of many of the ocean cycles and coupled ocean-atmosphere cycle) then we will have an excellent test of the power of anthropogenic forcing from CO2 compared to these other cycles. Let’s say we get a Dalton type minimum, then we will be able to compare the effects of the highest CO2 in 800,000+ years to the cooling brought about by the quiet solar period. An exciting time to be studying climate!

  64. Pascvaks,

    the heels are thinner when the AMO is down. The thicker heel gives more area to slide on the ice. The thinner heel, eg. SPIKED, allows the heel to penetrate the ice for better traction.

    You are welcome. 8>)

  65. kuhnkat says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:06 am
    One of the issues is whether the multidecadal oscillations are driven by something else. As they are out of synch with each other it makes it difficult to see whether there is a larger primary source driving them. Since we do not know what causes them we really can’t say with certainty how long the cycles should be.

    Going back to the information on the TSI, we may find out how much it drives the cycles with this AMO. If it goes back up for a while, as Joe Bastardi indicates above, we could assume that while the sun is the primary driver it has a delayed influence on the cycles. If the AMO stays down we would see that the sun would seem to have a more direct influence on the cycles.
    —–
    There have been many studies relating the AMO and other ocean cycles to solar variation. One of the best is:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707005418

  66. R. Gates,

    you lambast Joe and others for their lack of understanding of long term forcings. i would suggest that you go back and do your homework before claiming others have a lack of understanding. Your BELIEF is based on projections by models. The outputs of those models do NOT match in any important way what has been happening over the last 15 years. In fact, they do not match anything but temperature to any degree in their hindcasts.

    You are speaking from knowledge of a false GOD.

  67. kuhnkat says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:17 am
    R. Gates,

    you lambast Joe and others for their lack of understanding of long term forcings. i would suggest that you go back and do your homework before claiming others have a lack of understanding. Your BELIEF is based on projections by models. The outputs of those models do NOT match in any important way what has been happening over the last 15 years. In fact, they do not match anything but temperature to any degree in their hindcasts.

    You are speaking from knowledge of a false GOD.
    ———-
    As you have no science in your reply, I can only assume your god is politically based rhetoric.

  68. R. Gates;
    Joe, you may be a reasonably good weather forecaster, but horrible at understanding longer term forcings going on that are changing the nature of the short-term patterns and variability you are looking at. Your primary failure is….>>>

    Well, well, we have R. Gates lecturing yet again on radiative physics. Would this be the same R. Gates that was eager to bet that if Al Gore’s on air experiment was repeated as illustrated it would produce the results that were illustrated, and flat out lost that bet? Is this the same R. Gates that failed to understand that the experiment was done using IR heat lamps as the energy source, and as a consequence could not possibly produce the illustrated results? Is this the same R. Gates who suggested that the experiment could be repeated without the globes in the jars because they were “superflous”, demonstrating that he completely misunderstands the role of the globes in converting shortwave energy to longwave energy commensurate with GHG theory?

    Really R. Gates? Was that you demonstrating your compete and total lack of understanding of radiative physics? Or was it some other R. Gates? If it was another R. Gates, why then my apologies. If you and he are one and the same however, you’ve adequatly demonstrated that your understanding of the physics is abysmal, and you lecturing Joe D’Aleo on the matter is sort of like me explaining Einstein’s E=MC^2 to Oppenheimer.

  69. The first graph provided by Bill Illis shows that the AMO goes negative after the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions. The long term data also shows negatives after the eruptions of Krakatau (1983), Santa Maria (1902) and Agng (1963). THis demonstrates clearly that the AMO is responding to temperature, not driving it.

    By contract the El Nino shows no relationship with volcanoes.

  70. “This demonstrates clearly that the AMO is responding to temperature, not driving it.”

    More likely AMO is responding to solar energy input. Volcanos that inject substantial material into the stratosphere reduce solar insolation.

    If the AMO receives less solar energy it will then deprive an adequate supply of energy to the air above which will cool.

    It looks as though ENSO is less susceptible to volcanic disruption than AMO. That supports my general view that ENSO is driven primarily by an imbalance between solar energy input to the ocean either side of the equator rather than absolute energy content.

    With the mean position of the ITCZ being north of the equator there is a constant imbalance of energy input to the oceans either side of the equator.

    That energy imbalance regularly buids up and is periodically discharged by an El Nino event.

  71. Kim said “kim says: December 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    “The climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means and the oceans are a continuation of the sun by other means.”

    Obviously since Mike Mann has confirmed that we have a war

    we may need a real strategists like Von Clausewitz, whose quote was that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

    I wonder if the AMO proves to be a good weapon.

  72. Stephen Wilde “More likely AMO is responding to solar energy input.” I take your point. The fact that there is no consistent lead or lag between the exact timing of AMO and temperature peaks and troughs supports it. Either way it means the AMO probably has little predictive value.

  73. “Either way it means the AMO probably has little predictive value.”

    I wouldn’t go that far.

    It implies that whatever the sun does will affect AMO before it affects PDO because PDO is more heavily modulated by internal ocean cycles than by solar activity.

    Furthermore, whatever the AMO does will affect the weather downwind right around the globe.

    Since the northern hemisphere varies more than the southern hemisphere due to the thermal inertia of the southern oceans it follows that AMO will have a disproportionate effect on global climate.

    Or rather the size, intensities and positions of the permanent climate zones in the northern hemisphere.

    I’m pretty sure that what we perceive as climate change is just shifts in the permanent climate zones with little or no change in system energy content (not temperature).

    That is the problem with our sensors. Surface thermometers just record the energy content of the air passing them on its way to space. Satellites just record the energy content of outgoing longwave radiation as it passes them on the way to space.

    Neither records the energy content of the Earth system as a whole. The Earth system can be losing energy whilst the sensors show high readings and gaining energy whilst the sensors are recording low readings.

    Climatology is currently an incoherent mess.

  74. Lazy Teenager: “I could plot women’s skirt lengths and global temperatures on the same graph and maybe get “proof” that womens fashion affects climate or that women prefer being cold.”
    Or maybe you could make the same spurious connection with global temperatures and a trace gas ? ;)

  75. Judging by Figure 2 it actually looks like there should still be just under 20 years of warm cycle left. That means no “down cycle” until 2030!

  76. Is there somewhere you can point me where I can read about the science that backs the claim that “this portends a cooler period, especially winters”. I’m not saying it’s not scientifically accurate, but let’s see the beef. It should, really, be included alongside your claim. Right next to it.
    More generally, I like Wattsup, I’ve been reading more or less daily for over two years now, it’s a good place to read up on what’s going on, but you guys have been really shrill lately. Can you tone down the screeching? You remind me of the death of Simon in Lord of the Flies.

  77. I too tend to think that the current negative AMO level is temporary and seasonal only. I think the durations of negative and positive AMO cycles are variable and the next sustained negative or cool phase for the AMO may not start until 2015. In my opinion ,a cooling will be first observable in the Arctic Ocean SST and in the Arctic atmosphere caused by more high altitude cold atmosphere tranferred to lower levels in the Arctic region . The cooler Arctic together with a negative AO will in turn cool the North Atlantic Ocean via currents and atmosphere links and eventually cool the land areas of the Eastern Coast of North America and Western Europe . The predictive value of the negative AMO is that once AMO does start to go negative for a more sustained period [and it can be as long as 30 years ], it can foretell of sustained and extra global cooling [especially Northern Hemisphere] and adds to the cooling already iniated by the cooler Pacific as indicated by PDO[ since 2007] . Such a period existed 1964 -1976[ and even to 1980] when both PDO and AMO were negative or cool .Different regions of the globe felt some of this cooling as early 1940’s and as late as the late 1980’s

  78. I don’t take this data as anything that just one more indication in a growing pile of indications that temperatures are more likely to fall than rise in the near future. The AMO has been trending generally downward for some time. That we should start to see negative months should come as no surprise as a part of that trend.

    The indications are that generally speaking we are more likely to see colder winters ahead in the Northern Hemisphere. That is backed up with observational data.

  79. matt v.

    That is a plausible scenario but others are possible.

    I see the North Atlantic as a ‘playground’ where the bottom up effects from the ENSO phenomenon meet the top down solar effects on the polar air masses.

    The North Atlantic gets its energy both from the warm water flowing north which is ultimately influenced by ENSO in the Pacific and also from direct solar input.

    We currently see a decline in ENSO activity during the recently started negative phase of the PDO but it is a bit early for it to have fed through the ocean basins to the North Atlantic. Normally I would expect the AMO to be positive for a few years yet as you point out.

    However we have recently seen an exceptionally low level of solar activity and an exceptionally negative AO with more meridional jets, increased global cloudiness and therefore less solar energy into the North Atlantic.

    So, whilst I agree with you in general terms the recent decline in solar activity could make this into more than a simple seasonal variation.

    We shall see.

  80. Like quite a few of the people posting comments here, when I eyeball the graph and look at the lengths of the cycles, it looks like the current downturn is just a blip (just like many blips that have occurred before). As others here have said, it looks to me like we won’t go truly negative until perhaps 2020 onwards.

    NB Reading these comments confirms to me what healthy skepticism is all about: unlike the back-slapping warmists who would never dare to question other believers in the ’cause’, we skeptics are always prepared to question and doubt each other if we feel such doubts are necessary and such questions need to be asked. If, throughout history, people much greater than any of us had never asked questions, we would all still be living in the forests, believing the Earth was flat, and scared of the dark.

  81. Alasdair Green says:
    December 10, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    Is there somewhere you can point me where I can read about the science that backs the claim that “this portends a cooler period, especially winters”. I’m not saying it’s not scientifically accurate, but let’s see the beef. It should, really, be included alongside your claim. Right next to it>>>

    Uhm… you mean like maybe the main article and all the comments in the thread itself?

    Alasdair Green;
    More generally, I like Wattsup, I’ve been reading more or less daily for over two years now, it’s a good place to read up on what’s going on, but you guys have been really shrill lately. Can you tone down the screeching? >>>

    What screeching? Can you quote the comment you consider screeching?

    (not to mention that given what has been done to science by a cotery of misanthropists wrapped in a false cloak of morality, screeching is in order)

  82. This explains the frantic desperation at Durban. Somewhere somehow they know time is running out but not in what they say about climate warming but in what they are not admitting to in climate cooling coming on. The window of reality and science fact of cooling is closing in and the chance for locking in payments before it becomes more obvious across more indicators is passing before them.

  83. Tim and Erik

    That approach of judging the cycle length unfortunately sounds a lot like the warmist models that reduced the AMO to a constant and subtracted it from a warming trend to get a man made warming residual trend. Such handling of a complex multi-decadal cycle with a limited number of good data cycles is a bit much. This argument of caution in the data limitations works both ways but ultimately works against those that oversimplify it for purposes of massive misdirection of policy govt. and resources.

  84. “R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:09 am
    It is more likely the earth will be warmer on average in 2030 rather than colder than it is now. The shorter term variations in the AMO and other short term cycles are noise riding on this. They may mask or dampen the effects of CO2, but they can’t negate it.”

    See: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    Things can of course change, but at the moment, it certainly looks like the sine curve is being followed and that 2030 will be colder and that the effects of CO2 are being totally negated.

    Also see Phil Jones interview at:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Note the answer to question A: A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    So the question is: Since 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 had nothing to do with CO2, why should the years past 1975 have anything to do with CO2?

  85. I assume that the first graph has some sort of smoothing applied but not specified anywhere in the thread (I may have missed it). Would Joe or someone please clarify?

    Thx

  86. What information would one have to indicate that the world will be warmer in 2030 than now? And please don’t cite the discredited projections of CRU or GISS as observations have been constantly diverging from those models for over a decade.

    The only indication I would have of any continued warming would be the possibility that we have no yet fully recovered from the LIA and we still have some more to go. Probably not very much more but I would not be surprised to see one more spate of warming at the same rate as the 1910-1940 and 1975-2005 periods of warming. I currently expect to see cooling temperatures from now until about 2040 or so and then a possible resumption of warming at the same rate as the previous episodes. We will, if the past pattern holds and barring any significant solar grand minimum, “give back” about half of the gain from 1975-2005 and then warm a bit. That will, in my opinion, likely be the end of the LIA recovery if we are not currently fully recovered.

  87. Yes R Gates, it seems your Hockey team has finally figured out the long term trend is 0.16 C per decade–the same as long term trends: I am sick and tired of you and others of your foolishness. You get a gaggle of “climate scientists who are not held responsible for any of their antics, yet they are costing humanity Billions of dollars based on their video game simulations. If they worked for a drug company and had Climategate I&II emails such has been presented they would ALL be in jail right now

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/

    It just so happens as Brozek above has shown this has been the same trend irregardless of CO2

  88. The RSS satellite data are available for November and it comes in with an anomaly of +0.033 C which is down from October’s anomaly of +0.089 C. That means that October’s significant drop from September’s +0.287 C was not a blip. So global temperatures are currently very close to the average over time. Over time it looks like this:

    2011 7 0.328
    2011 8 0.286
    2011 9 0.287
    2011 10 0.089
    2011 11 0.033

    So we temperatures globally have fallen off the table in the past two months.

  89. Werner Brozek asks:
    So the question is: Since 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 had nothing to do with CO2, why should the years past 1975 have anything to do with CO2?

    I would assume you actually know the answer to this question, but it seems the underlying assumption you are making is the all effects must have the same causes, which is of course one of the basic errors of logic to make. The anthropogenic fingerprint is clearly on a large percentage of the warming since 1976 or so, with other periods of warming having their own unique matrix of causations.

  90. Observe Lazy’s textbook example of someone disregarding Occam’s Razor. The simple, elegant answer is that the planet continues its emergence from the LIA, along exactly the same trend line for the past 300+ years.

    But Lazy chooses to ignore that simple and straightforward answer in favor of a nebulous, unquantifiable and unmeasurable “anthropogenic fingerprint”, for which there is exactly zero empirical, testable evidence. That is cognitive dissonance on a par with Harold Camping’s true believers.

  91. Smokey,

    Could you please post your rebuttal to Lazy again, but substitute in R. Gates name throughout?

    TIA!

  92. davidmhoffer,

    Thanks for the correction. I’d just read a Lazy Teenager post and wasn’t thinking.

    Gates, the ball’s in your court.☺

  93. “R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    The anthropogenic fingerprint is clearly on a large percentage of the warming since 1976 or so”

    Not according to Dr. David Evans. See

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

    From this article:

    “1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.”

  94. Werner Brozek says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:09 pm
    “R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    The anthropogenic fingerprint is clearly on a large percentage of the warming since 1976 or so”

    Not according to Dr. David Evans. See

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

    From this article:

    “1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

    Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.”
    ——-
    Are you seriously going to waste my time with this tired old (and completely untrue) skeptics textbook argument? If you want to debate the real science and the real issues of uncertainty (like climate sensitivity) then let’s do it, but don’t waste either of our valuable time with this nonsense. For those who want the background of why Werner’s appeal to the supposed missing hotspot is nonsense see:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

  95. R. Gates;
    For those who want the background of why Werner’s appeal to the supposed missing hotspot is nonsense see:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm>>>

    The funny thing is R. Gates, almost every time you post a link, it contains either completely off topic information or the exact opposite of what you claim. Do you post these links at random, hoping nobody with follow them? Or do you just not understand them in the first place?

    In this case, you are quoting from that well known site “Skeptical Science” which is a cloaking device for a rabid CAGW site that is widely known for cherry picking, obfuscation, and selective reporting. But what the heck, let’s see what it says. Here’s the money quote from the very beginning of the article:

    “Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.”

    And there you have it! The data matches the models, except in the exact place where the hot spot is supposed to be, so the obvious conclusion is that the models are right and the measured data wrong. Then, astoundingly, the explanation goes on to say that the reason is probably something to do with satellite drift. Odd is it not that satellite drift in this case is being blamed for discrepancies in the tropics, but the exact same satellite drift supposedly has no effect on lattitude data from outside the tropics.

    How does that work R. Gates? How does satellite drift affect data from 20S to 20N, but not data from 20N to 90N and not data from 20S to 90S? Why, if the data doesn’t match the models, should we assume that it is the models that are correct? Werner’s point was that the tropical hot spot is missing, and you’ve managed to link to data that shows… IT IS!

    Sorry, but if you’re going to accept Skeptical Science’s reasoning that the tropical hot spot is missing because of satellite drift, then you’re going to have to correct all the data from outside the tropics for satellite drift as well, which means that all the data that is currently being cited as proof that the models are correct is actually wrong.

    Gosh, could you throw some fastballs for a change? These curve balls that you seem to think will fool anyone are pretty easy to knock out of the park.

  96. Smokey says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    davidmhoffer,
    Thanks for the correction.>>>

    Actually, it wasn’t a correction. I thought it was very appropriate for one of Lazy’s rather lazy arguments, and I just happened to think that it was appropriate for R. Gates as well. They’re so similar often times that I think their getting their material from the same places. anyway, the rebuttal appled to both of them.

  97. Davidmhoffer,

    How can you look at 1 + 1 and call it 3? The issue was about the anthropgenic signature in climate change and the tired old argument that the data don’t show this signature when in fact they do. It is not just that tropospheric temps have increased, which they have, globally, but that it has been matched by a concurrent drop in stratospheric temps. But you, I expect, will continue in your fictional accounting of things (like the odd statement you made earlier today that CO2 didn’t start increasing until 1920). You may still win that Nobel prize…for fiction…

  98. Smokey says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm
    Wrong again, Gates. You believe in models. But they are trumped by observations.
    ——-
    I actually prefer a nice balance of both, as models can help us interpret what observation might mean…i.e. They give some possible context and science behind those observations.

  99. R.Gates, I’ve got to tell you that, as more and more contrary evidence continues to pile in, the fainter your voice becomes.

  100. “R. Gates says:
    December 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    If you want to debate the real science and the real issues of uncertainty (like climate sensitivity) then let’s do it”

    I disagree with you on the hot spot as do others as we have seen. But let us talk about sensitivity now.

    The median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C according to warmists.

    I will roughly assume that at the rate we are going now, the +3 C per doubling is close to +3 C per century which is 0.03 C per year.

    Keeping the above in mind, I would like to compare apples with apples. This 2011 La Nina is the warmest La Nina. The anomaly according to Hadcrut3 is 0.357 for 2011 to the end of October and I will assume any change for the last two months will be negligible. Previously, we had a La Nina in 2000 where the anomaly was 0.271. We also had one in 1996 where the anomaly was 0.137. It has been 15 years since the 1996 La Nina and 11 years since the 2000 La Nina. Now if the +3 C were true, then according to the 1996 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.137 + 0.03(15) = 0.587. Likewise, according to the 2000 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.271 + 0.03(11) = 0.601. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.548. So this La Nina should be warmer than 1998 if the warming is indeed catastrophic and the 3 C is correct. Since 0.548 is lower than both 0.587 and 0.601, I can only conclude that the sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is way too high.

    Now having said the above, it still does not prove that the very slight warming that DID happen is due to CO2. Part or even all of it may be due to us coming out of the LIA. But one thing is clear to me. IF there is warming due to CO2, it is very minimal and NOT catastrophic. Do you agree?

  101. We need people like R Gates here, as he usually posts smarter comments than the average ones from the alarmist fraternity.

    The fact that they are usually taken from the widely discredited gospel of St Gore of the CAGW bible is unfortunate, but at least they inspire lively debate.

  102. There is some comments above that the AMO merely responds to global temperature, that it responds to volcanoes (while the ENSO does not). So it just reflects temperatures.

    That is true,

    But what is missing from that argument is that there are long-term cycles and short-term spikes in the AMO which matches very well with global temperatures. It reflects temperature, but it reflects a cyclical/variable temperature/climate.

    So, either the AMO is a natural oscillation (like the ENSO) which drives global temperatures by +/- 0.3C (or 50% of the value of the AMO) …

    … or the AMO is just a really good indicator of the other, so far unknown, natural driver of the climate that produces long-term cycles and short-term spikes in global temperature.

    Either way, it needs to be included in the “natural variation” component of the climate by the IPCC and by climate scientists which they have so far ignored. [There are two recent high-profile papers by Foster/(Tamino) and Huber which omit this important natural cycle].

    And there are good arguments that the AMO is a natural oscillation by itself (not an indicator of some other grand variability) but driven by the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation/long-term affects of the ENSO.

  103. Where is the AMO going?

    First, the cycles in the AMO are not a regular up and down 30 years. The longer-term reconstructions show that it has multi-decadal cyles but they can be shorter than 30 years and vary by a greater amount.

    Second, there is more variability in it than the above smoothed chart shows. It varies by +/- 0.6C. It has some large spikes (that seem to be associated with after-affects of large or long ENSO events so it is at least partially tied to the ENSO).

    Third, If it is a natural oscillation up and down, it would have to also be tied to the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation, Atlantic winds, Arctic sea ice potentially (in addition to some clear association with the ENSO).

    So, lets look at North Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Heat Content.

    Looks like it is trending down now.

  104. Further to my earlier post about the correlation between AMO and Arctic air or surface temeperatures ,an interesting graph can be found in the paper called ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION AND AMO by Chylek et al, Fig 3 [ I think Anthony posted this some time ago on WUWT ] showing 11 year running average of Arctic temperatures and AMO . A close examinations shows Arctic temperatures leading the NOAA AMO curve from 1910 to 2008. The authors claim that “AMO is a major factor affecting inter-decadal variation of Arctic temperatures”. I think it is the other way around , namely AMO is affected by the cooling of the Arctic currents flowing into the North Atlantic and atmosphere [AO/NAO] links . So I believe that the Arctic will show cooling first [ y some evidence may show this coming winter] before AMO will go negative in a sustained way.

  105. matt v. says:
    December 11, 2011 at 6:14 am

    Further to my earlier post about the correlation between AMO and Arctic air or surface temeperatures, an interesting graph can be found in the paper called ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION AND AMO by Chylek et al, Fig 3 [ I think Anthony posted this some time ago on WUWT ]

    Looks like we missed it. However the full paper is at

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    Other references are

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/new-paper-arctic-air-temperature-change-amplification-by-chylek-et-al-2009/

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038777.shtml

    Others of interest may be

    ttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/04/arctic-warming-goes-with-the-floe/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/another-look-at-polar-amplification/

  106. Something many commenters chronically overlook:
    AMO is a high amplitude component of global average SST.
    (Leverage is a concept covered in in part 2 of Stat 101.)

  107. Werner Brozek said:

    “Now having said the above, it still does not prove that the very slight warming that DID happen is due to CO2. Part or even all of it may be due to us coming out of the LIA. But one thing is clear to me. IF there is warming due to CO2, it is very minimal and NOT catastrophic. Do you agree?”
    ———
    First, I do think there are multiple factors at play in the overall warming of the later part of the 20th century, and that they have their root causes in two main categories: solar and anthropogenic. On the solar side, we saw the 188 year solar cycle length reach a minimum trough in 2000. The oceans were of course responding to this additional solar input, just as they will respond as the average solar cycle length is now increasing and will be for the next approximately 90 years and sunspots will be decreasing. On the anthropogenic side, we of course have the rapid increases in greenhouse gases. From all of my study of the research, I would say somewhere around 60% of the warming was anthropogenic. I do happen to think the 3C of warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is a very good estimate when factoring in all fast and slow feedbacks, and that the anthropogenic signal will only increase it’s dominance over other natural forcings in the coming decades. This of course does not mean that short term forcings like volcanoes, ENSO, AMO, etc. might not mask the anthopogenic signal for periods, but in the long run, the anthropogenic signal will be the dominant signal. Will this be catastrophic? On that question I am currently uncertain. Humans have an amazing ability to adapt. So long as we can continue to grow our grains and the oceans remain healthy we’ll be fine. If things begin to deteriorate in these areas, there could be trouble, but then we’ll see a strong push for geoengineering, which may be a way out.

  108. Stephen Wilde, it’s not as simple as everything being downwind from a solar driver that only operates in one region of the world. Certainly signal detection will be easier where the variance is highest. Where folks are going wrong with their conception: focusing too much on blends (averages) and too little on contrasts (gradients). Gradients, not averages, drive flow. The gradients change over the solar cycle and integrate into observed multidecadal patterns. Best Regards.

  109. Well RG, at least you accept that the issue is between solar and anthropogenic.

    However, you need to take a few more steps:

    i) What do you think alters the rate of solar energy into the oceans when the sun is more active when the variations in TSI are too small to account for the observed effects?

    I say it is increased jetstream zonality which widens the tropical climate zones,reduces total global cloudiness and albedo and lets more sunshine into the tropical oceans.

    ii) What do you think the system response is to that extra solar input?

    I say it is a faster water cycle acting via a poleward shift of all the permanent climate zones which is the system response in a negative manner to any forcing that tries to alter the global equilibrium energy content (not temperature) set by atmospheric pressure, solar input and the physical properties of water especially the forces required to break the bonds between water molecules (which are themselves pressure dependent).

    iii) Why would the system response to more CO2 be any different and how far do you think the climate zones would shift as a result of our emissions?

    I say it would be no different and the zones would shift hardly at all relative to the solar effect because from MWP to LIA to date the latitudinal shifting caused by solar variation was 1000 miles or more going by evidence of the observed climate changes in various regions worldwide over the period.

    Also hardly at all because human emissions of CO2 are a miniscule fraction of the total GHG effect which is primarily water vapour and the evidence we have so far is that atmospheric humidity varies little due to the negative system response of a changed speed (or size) for the water cycle. There is no evidence that there is any water vapour amplification of the effect from more CO2.

    So I think you, the IPCC and all warmist believers are way out on the proposed warming effect from a doubling of CO2. I think it is close to zero due to the negative system response from redistributing the climate zones and thereby changing the speed of the water cycle.

    Instead all one sees is a faster flow of energy past our sensors (which then show a fractionally higher reading) for a zero effect on total system energy content.
    The effect of CO2 is to slow down the rate of energy flow a fraction and the effect of the faster water cycle is to speed it up again for a zero net effect.

    Unless you can show that latitudinally shifting the permanent climate zones has a zero thermal effect?

  110. Paul Vaughan says:
    December 11, 2011 at 9:20 am
    “Stephen Wilde, it’s not as simple as everything being downwind from a solar driver that only operates in one region of the world.”

    Did I suggest that ? I didn’t intend to.

  111. R Gates,
    While I have always disagreed with your belief in the AGW hypothesis, I have always respected your considered and polite approach, as well as your willingness to take part in a global debate that has been having so many profound impacts on the finances and politics of the (mostly) Western world.

    However, you posting a link to SkSc’s hopeless effort to explain away the lack of a hotspot has really brought you down in my estimation. The missing hotspot has been the Achilles Heel of the whole AGW hypothesis, and it leaves warmists (and you, it seems) stamping their feet, throwing their toys out of their prams, and clutching at straws.

    There are some great moments in the SkSc piece that really need to be pulled apart. Namely:
    “Although these attempts have managed to reconcile the observational data with theoretical and model expectations within overlapping uncertainty intervals, the real world behavior of the troposphere is still unclear”
    i.e. they’ve massaged the data so that it agrees with the models, but it was still a pretty crappy effort.

    ” But we have to make do with what we’ve got, and that means working with problematic data and finding creative ways to work around them.”
    Scientists don’t find ‘creative’ ways to ‘work around’ data – if they do, then they are merely becoming con-artists.

    “When there is an apparent discrepancy between “models” and observations, that often (but not always) means there is a discrepancy between general, theoretical meteorological expectations and the observational data. It’s not a case of trying to reconcile the observations with climate models, but rather trying to reconcile observational data (which often have well known biases) with our physics-based understanding of the climate system.”
    i.e. ‘if the data doesn’t fit the theory, then the data must be wrong’. This is the scientific method turned on its head!

    If a skeptic had posted up such weak, hand-wavy, circular logic the warmists would have been onto it like a tramp on a sandwich. Come on RG, man-up and admit it, the warmists can’t find the hotspot that the models told them would be there.

    (oh, and the stuff about measuring temperatures with wind-shear was laughable nonsense: “Can’t seem to find those pesky high temperatures? Ditch those thermometers and get your wind-sock out instead!”)

  112. “R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
    From all of my study of the research, I would say somewhere around 60% of the warming was anthropogenic. I do happen to think the 3C of warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is a very good estimate when factoring in all fast and slow feedbacks, and that the anthropogenic signal will only increase it’s dominance over other natural forcings in the coming decades.”

    Thank you for your response. As for your comment “that the anthropogenic signal will only increase it’s dominance over other natural forcings in the coming decades”, people who DO believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, assume a logarithmic effect. Even the IPCC believes this. So its dominance should decrease over time.

  113. Wiki says that the AMO is de-trended for warming. If that were true then a significant part of the preceeding discussion has ignored this in a stampede to exult in the downfall of the warmists – so my question is:- how exactly is the AMO detrended for warming and is the detrending reasonable?

  114. Werner Brozek says:
    December 11, 2011 at 4:10 pm
    “R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
    From all of my study of the research, I would say somewhere around 60% of the warming was anthropogenic. I do happen to think the 3C of warming for a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm is a very good estimate when factoring in all fast and slow feedbacks, and that the anthropogenic signal will only increase it’s dominance over other natural forcings in the coming decades.”

    Thank you for your response. As for your comment “that the anthropogenic signal will only increase it’s dominance over other natural forcings in the coming decades”, people who DO believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, assume a logarithmic effect. Even the IPCC believes this. So its dominance should decrease over time.
    ———-
    Undoubtedly, CO2’s pure greenhouse effect is logarithmic by itself with increasing concentrations, and if this were the only consideration there would be no discussion about climate sensitivity as we would know from the very simple math that a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm would result in about a 1C global temperature increase. Obviously, it is not quite that simple or dozens of PhD’s would not have written numerous papers on the subject of sensitivity. Here of course we introduce the subject of feedbacks, both fast and slow, and both positive and negative. And of course the biggest unknown is clouds. Again, the paleoclimate studies come into play, and taking them, and a range of climate models under consideration, the best average estimate for sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3C in global temperature change, which is more than the forcings from solar activity we could expect, and thus the conclusion that the anthropogenic signal will increasingly dominate the solar forcings over the decades and centuries to come.

  115. Smokey says:
    December 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm
    Wrong again, Gates. You believe in models. But they are trumped by observations.

    ===================================

    Yeah. Prove thyself, Gates. You have nothing to stand on but spin…which I have gladly been disseminating since god know’s when.

    Prove yourself. But you have to make a cogent argument.

    The only one that you have made for me that I am grateful for is the Ron Paul candicacy for president.

    And at that point, you have succeeded.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  116. I’ve been hearing predictions of the coming ice age for about 4 years now. I’ll believe it when I see it. It’s called “scepticism”. You may people have heard of it.

  117. “R. Gates says:
    December 11, 2011 at 8:45 pm
    Obviously, it is not quite that simple or dozens of PhD’s would not have written numerous papers on the subject of sensitivity.
    the best average estimate for sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3C in global temperature change”

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/24/moncktons-letter-to-the-journal-remote-sensing/

    The last paragraph is “Remote Sensing, therefore, was right to publish [12], authored by two of the world’s foremost experts on the design and operation of satellite remote-sensing systems and on the interpretation of the results. The authors stand in a long and respectable tradition of reassessing not only the values of individual temperature feedbacks but of their mutually-amplified aggregate. Their results suggest that temperature feedbacks are somewhat net-negative, implying climate sensitivity ~1 K. In the context of the wider evidence considered in outline here, they may be right.”

    Do you know what happened to the editor who allowed this paper to be published? He had to resign. I have an engineering degree and know how proper science should be done. If Trenberth thought the article had flaws, he should have submitted a rebuttal. As for who is right on sensitivity, time will tell. In the meantime, I am glad Durban delayed things for four years so others can be more sure that Spencer is right.

  118. Things are very dry in Central MN. After a few inches of snow in early November we’ve had nothing and nothing in the long range forecast.

    Looking at McCabe 2004 at NOAA on the precipitation for our area during PDO + AMO negative is not encouraging. Still, we have water to begin.

  119. Several readers have pointed-out that the linked November AMO data was negative in 1999 and 2000.
    How has this discrepancy happened?

  120. Hello All, First off I have been following this site and your posts for over a year now and enjoy stopping by here daily. I have never posted before. I am not scientifically inclined so I keep my ears and eyes open and my mouth shut. Just going back to elementary science class and the four seasons of the year (which are all beautiful in Arkansas) I tend to remember that the suns position in relation to our planet accounts for the warm temps in the summer and is the driving force in our significant temp declines in the winter. With that being said, how come the warmist side of the whole AGW argument completely refuses to accept that the sun (along with the jet stream and the ocean) could possibly be responsible for less than one degree of warming over the past 100 years? sorry if my question has a negative effect on the overall IQ rating of your site Anthony (lol)! Thanks for helping keep all of us laymen informed and for fighting this battle.

  121. Watched the UK Metoffice explain their medium-term climate model forecasting process at AGU and they are now using the AMO as one of their components describing it as “highly statistically significant”.

  122. Werner Brozek,

    My point was that virtually no one believes that simple logarithmic projections of the greenhouse activity of CO2 gives a fair treatment of sensitivity. Feedbacks must always be taken into account, as as the activities of clouds are especially highly uncertain in this regard– hence the controversial nature of the discussion of sensitivity. The bulk of both GCM’s and paleoclimate data seems to be pointing to an average of 3C of warming per a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm. Yes, there are outliers that claim less than 1C and more than 4C, but the average is 3C.

  123. Bill Illis

    Thanks for the AGU reference above . Yes the MET OFFICE is finally accepting the signifigance of AMO . They seem to have accepted the fact that AMO was involved in the cooling of 1965-1976 and in the warming 1977-2005 as I noted in my earlier post. This is the first time that I have noted that they have said that in the public . They also noted a 4 month [spread of 3-6] lead time for ENSO events to affect global temperatures and are calling for a global temperature anomaly for 2012 of about 0.46 C which is slightly warmer than they are calling for 2011.

  124. Further to RobWansbeck above: has anyone yet explained why the graphic (first chart above) shows positive AMO values for November 1999 and 2000 when the linked-to NOAA AMO data clearly show that these months were negative? This also means that the statement “This is the first time the November value has been negative since about 1996″ is factually incorrect.

    Also, why should a single month’s negative AMO portend “a cooler period, especially winters”? The AMO index was negative for five continuous months, Jan-May 2009, yet what it portended was the warmest continuous 18-month period in the NOAA temperature record (Jun 2009-Nov 2010).

Comments are closed.