In my opinion, this essay is a must read because it clearly illustrates correlation between ocean cycles to; Arctic ice loss and gain, glacier advance and retreat, and land surface temperature rise and fall. As I said graphically in a previous post…
Guest post by Juraj Vanovcan
The following article shows, that decadal oscillation in North Atlantic sea surface temperature is the driving force behind observed variations in European climate during 20th century. Long-term North Atlantic SST trend is well correlated to European temperature station record, Alpine glacier retreat/advance and changes in Arctic ice extent as well.
Considering the problems with ground station record being contaminated by urbanization, land use changes and selective use, SST record offers an alternative metrics of changes in climate record, since it is free of at least some issues mentioned above. North Atlantic SST record is unique in this view, since it is quite reliable also in the early part of 20th century, when the ship measurement coverage of Atlantic between American continent and Europe had been much denser than in other parts of the globe [1].
Here is presented North Atlantic sea surface temperature record since 1850. While the pre-1880 data are rather noisy, probably because of sparse coverage, the 20th century record shows regular cyclical pattern of warming and cooling. The cycle length is 65 years, with cold minimums reached in 1910 and 1975 and warm maximums in 1940 and 2005.

Figure 1: North Atlantic SST record, expressed as monthly anomalies against 1971-2000 period (HadSST2 dataset)
Let’s now compare the North Atlantic SST record with the European ground stations within 40-70N and 10W-30E.

Figure 2: North Atlantic SST record compared to European ground stations
European station record is well correlated with the Atlantic SST changes, and lags the SST record by some 5 years. It is thus obvious, that it is the Atlantic decadal variability, which dictates the European climate. Some excessive surface warming to the end above the SST record (observed also in global surface and SST datasets) is either explained as a sign of quicker response of the surface to increasing radiative forcing, but critics consider it as a sign of urbanization and land use changes, plaguing the station record. This might be especially true for Europe, where population density and its growth have been considerable during the last 100 years. This dispute can be resolved by comparing the North Atlantic SST trend with long-term rural station record.
Armagh Observatory (Ireland) is one of the few rural stations with long historical record, located near small town of Armagh and its surrounding has been claimed to be basically intact since its start in 1796. Lomnicky peak Observatory (Slovakia) is located on the top of the Lomnicky Peak (2655), the highest mountain of Carpathian ridge and measurements are available since 1941.

Figure 3: North Atlantic SST record compared to rural ground stations
From the graph above, it is obvious that the North Atlantic SST record is extremely well correlated to selected UHI-free surface station records from both Western and Central Europe. Amplitude of warming and cooling cycles is slightly more pronounced in the station records.
There are several points worth of interest.
- The rate of warming in 1910-1940 period has been equal with the warming period 1975-2005.Even if one suggests that the anthropogenic forcing is superimposed on natural variations in the background, it is difficult to identify the alleged “increased anthropogenic forcing” in the record to the end of 20th century.
- There has been pronounced cooling period since 1940 until 1980, which completely erased the early century warming against the 19th century average. The 1982-centered decade in Armagh and CET records has been actually colder than end of 19th century and the decade centered around 1870, which again questions the concept of anthropogenic forcing, which should already manifest with the CO2 increase. Surprisingly enough, looking back at the whole length of the both records, 80ties in Europe were equally coldish as average of the Little Ice Age period.
- The overall warming trend since 1900 (0.6 deg C/century for SST and 0.9 deg C/century for the station record) is partially created by the fact, that beginning of the century starts with the cycle minimum and ends with the cycle maximum. By more proper procedure – comparing the differences between 1910/1975 minimums and 1940/2005 maximums – one gets constant warming trend of 0.3 deg C/century for SST record.
- Despite a string of cold years in early 1940s (much more pronounced in the Central/Eastern European record), individual years in 1940-1950 decade were comparably warm as during the last decade. But the fact is that the last decade as a whole has been warmest in record in both Armagh and Atlantic SST data.

Figure 4: 0-700m ocean heat content in North Atlantic, 1955-2010
In the monthly Atlantic SST record, we can observe that the recent warm phase peaked in 2005 and subsequent cooling of North Atlantic started, despite the recent AMO peak as a response to 2009/2010 El Nino. This climate shift is even better visualized in the 0-700m ocean heat content record for the Northern Atlantic. Based on previous records, we can expect the European climate to follow the SST record and to mimic the 1940-1975 cooling trend.
* * *
Multidecadal oscillation in European climate is also tied to European glacier growth/decline. We often hear about the recent Alpine glaciers retreat, but the fact is, that similar retreat occurred in early 20th century as well, and most of the observed glaciers advanced just three decades ago. Data from Swiss Glaciology Institute, covering more than 100 Swiss glaciers, show ratio of advancing, stationery and retreating glaciers during the 20th century, presented here against the AMO index.

Figure 5: Swiss glacier advance/retreat related to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (older years are to the right)
Compared to North Atlantic SST record, the period with most glacier growth/retreat lags the ocean by 5 years, matching the lag in surface record. Extremely warm European summer in 2003 is clearly recognizable, when all observed glaciers retreated. But similar period occurred in 1945-1950, followed by years with prevailing growth in late 70ties/early 80ties. This glacier behavior is also discussed in recent study “100 year mass changes in the Swiss Alps linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations” . Based on the AMO peak in 2005 and observed 5-year lag, rebound of Alpine glaciers in the near future is expected.
* * *
North Atlantic seems to have decisive effect on Arctic temperature and ice extent as well. This is understandable, since the Gulf Stream brings masses of warm Atlantic water into the Northern Ocean. Plotting the post-1979 satellite era ice extent against both North Atlantic SST anomalies and Ocean heat content shows reasonable correlation.

Figure 6: Arctic ice extent as a function of North Atlantic SST record, 1979-2009

Figure 7: Arctic ice extent as a function of North Atlantic 0-700m ocean heat content, 1979-2009
By extrapolation this correlation backwards, it is understandable, that the North West Passage has been open for shipping in both 1942-1944 and again in 2007-2009 period. Beyond this SST range, also other positive/negative amplifying effects may change the linear correlation suggested above. Starting rebound of Arctic ice extent since its 2007 minimum is well explainable in light of recent climate shift in the North Atlantic to the cooling mode.
In light of these facts, the alleged Arctic ice history often presented as a “proof” of “unprecedented” ice retreat in the 20th century is unsupported.
Juraj Vanovcan 26th September 2010
===================================================
My thanks to Juraj for this excellent essay. The conclusion from this essay is that the oceans drive the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The polar ice responds to the AMO, and glaciers in Europe respond to the AMO. When the AMO and PDO coincide to both be negative, forecast to be sometime around 2015, there’s gonna be some ‘splaining to do.
As the New Scientist finally came to realize and publish on this week, the sun and the oceans play a bigger role than many give credit for. – Anthony
Here’s some additional information via appinsys:
PDO Plus AMO / US Temperatures
Joseph D’Aleo has conducted a correlation analysis between the PDO, AMO and temperatures [http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf] and [http://intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127]. The following figures are from D’Aleo’s analysis.
The following figure shows the 5-year means of PDO, AMO and PDO + AMO.

The next figure shows the US temperature anomalies as calculated by NASA’s James Hansen (2001). The periods when the temperature anomalies are positive correspond almost exactly to when the PDO+AMO changes between warm and cool phases.

The following figure compares the PDO+AMO with the US average annual temperatures. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.85 between the two – an extremely good correlation.

The next figure compares the same temperature data with atmospheric CO2. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.44 between the two – a fair correlation, but poor in comparison to the PDO+AMO correlation. Although correlation does not prove causation, lower correlation is evidence of lower probability of causation.

The following figure shows the combined effect of PDO and AMO on drought in the United States [http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html]. Further information on these drought relationships can be found at [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full]

PDO Plus AMO / US Temperatures
Joseph D’Aleo has conducted a correlation analysis between the PDO, AMO and temperatures [http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf] and [http://intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127]. The following figures are from D’Aleo’s analysis.
The following figure shows the 5-year means of PDO, AMO and PDO + AMO.

The next figure shows the US temperature anomalies as calculated by NASA’s James Hansen (2001). The periods when the temperature anomalies are positive correspond almost exactly to when the PDO+AMO changes between warm and cool phases.

The following figure compares the PDO+AMO with the US average annual temperatures. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.85 between the two – an extremely good correlation.

The next figure compares the same temperature data with atmospheric CO2. D’Aleo calculated an r-squared of 0.44 between the two – a fair correlation, but poor in comparison to the PDO+AMO correlation. Although correlation does not prove causation, lower correlation is evidence of lower probability of causation.

The following figure shows the combined effect of PDO and AMO on drought in the United States [http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html]. Further information on these drought relationships can be found at [http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full]


Laws of Nature says:
September 27, 2010 at 2:49 am
So according to that there is an additional factor: at least a part of the measured warming since then is a recovery from vulcanic cooling.
Thus further diminishing the role of the Sun…
Western Europe is especially sensitive to upstream ocean temperatures because the jet streams can track anywhere between Gibraltar and Iceland and sometimes both at once.
It would be nice to see this work related to a history of jet stream tracks and blocking patterns in the Western European region.
Meanwhile a couple of extracts from an article dated 7th May 2008 which can be found here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041
The ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) Cycle has been heavily investigated for many years but seems to be looked at as a freestanding phenomenon that just redistributes heat around the globe, sometimes warming and sometimes cooling.
I think that is wrong. I believe that ENSO (I would now refer to the longer term Pacific multidecadal cycles rather than ENSO) switches from warming to cooling mode depending on whether the sun is having a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much more rapid than anyone has previously believed with a measurable response occurring within a few years of a change in solar energy input. Indeed I see some evidence for the proposition that for various reasons cooling occurs faster than warming but I will save that for another time
Although there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic I believe that they follow the lead of ENSO and PDO. In effect they simply continue the distribution of the initial warming or cooling state around the globe and of course there are varying degrees of lag so that from time to time the other lesser oceanic oscillations can operate contrary to the primary Pacific oscillations until the lag is worked through.
I believe that this is a clear and simple theory of solar driven global climate change which should now be tested empirically.
Nice to see the concept gaining ground.
Hi Guys,
Cracking piece of work here – congratulations. It appears evident (and is more in tune with the laws of physics) that liquid heats gas rather than vice versa.
I’d love to see if it can be taken further though. Given the lack of interest in funding / carrying out research that doesn’t point all fingers at CO2, I was wondering if some of the foremost brains here would be able to carry out an holistic analysis of European and North American temperatures over the past 150 years that compares against ALL of the following:
AMO
PDO
Solar Activity (sunspots, cycle length, 10.7 flux)
Population and land usage
Volcanic activity and output (hardest to get detailed measurements, I accept)
Measured CO2
Man-made CO2
Man-made black carbon and other particulates/aerosols
All of these should have at least some theoretical influence on measured land temperatures. If we’re able to produce, for the period mentioned, a pretty solid explanation or formula linking the various factors listed to measured temperatures, we may finally be able to quantify the influence that each of these effect has. My suspicion is that the man-made aspects would be way down the list (though they may well have other environmental impacts that are much greater), but it is, I believe, the key to the entire climate debate.
If the recent past is anything to go by, there could be a Nobel Peace Prize in it 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
One should give credit where credit is due. Unfortunately, solar activity is now where it was 108 years ago, while temperatures are are about 1 degree warmer, so it seems that undue credit is given to the Sun.
Using TSI as a measurement, May 2006 would be approximately the last time solar activity was at these levels.
Ignoring this year, one could arguably say the first half of 2007 had the active equivalence of the last six months using 2800 MHz Solar Flux.
Using UAH data the first six months of 2006 and 2007 temps were respectively 0.23 0.32 above the anomaly and the first six months of this year are 0.56 above the anomaly.
If we average out 2006 and 2007 we get ~0.27 so we are about 0.29 degrees warmer than the last time solar activity was at these levels.
I don’t agree with your parameters but your conclusion is non the less robust.
“The overall warming trend since 1900 (0.6 deg C/century for SST and 0.9 deg C/century for the station record) is partially created by the fact, that beginning of the century starts with the cycle minimum and ends with the cycle maximum. By more proper procedure – comparing the differences between 1910/1975 minimums and 1940/2005 maximums – one gets constant warming trend of 0.3 deg C/century for SST record.”
Could be that this 0.3 deg C/Century ties in with Dr Roy Spencer’s view that additional CO2 emitted by man accounts for around 20/25% of measured increase since start of 20th Century.
The Herald newspaper in Scotland this morning “Weather stations report big freeze”
Winter has come early to the Highlands. Coldest September temperatures for nearly 30 years last night with -4.4 deg. C. recorded at one weather centre.” “The weekend of snowfall signalled ski resorts could be in for another record year”. Application forms are pouring in for skiing season passes at Cairngorm Mountain. Not much man made global warming up there just now. I guess it is just weather and has nothing to do with North Atlantic SST.
Juraj Vanovcan
Excellent article. Thanks a million.
The results agrees with my cyclic model shown below:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
My cyclic model is described in the following article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
Here in Australia they are going to put tax on carbon “in order to limit rise in global mean temperature to 2 degrees!”
Can not wait for the cooling cycle to start so that it stops these people from doing any damage by artificially raising the price of everything.
Meanwhile at the other end of the earth, it is well into spring and “Snow will fall to
300 to 400 metres, posing a hazard on elevated roads.”
http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/weather/
Great article. I’m in the precess of updating my long term temperature charts, especially in central & western Europe.
Here is my anomaly plot starting with 14 of the oldest European records starting before 1800. These included the Cen. England, DeBilt, and others from Upsalla, Berlin. Paris. Also the plot is compared to the Hadcet data. Just “eyeballing” it, it does seem to have a fair degree of correlation.
I used Rimfrost http://www.rimfrost.no/
is a good source for most of these early temps.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1800-2008-14-9ZSv8.gif
I used a Fourier convolution lo-pass filter of 40 years, one can get a picture of some of the secular changes going on.
So please explain for those of us too dense to see it for ourselves.
The graph of CO2 versus USHCN. The CO2 completely ignores the 1915 to 1937 Temperature rise; but then suddenly decides to pay attention to the 1980 to 2000 Temperature rise; so why did they stop at 2000; it is now 2010.
So does Joe’s 0.44 R^2 apply to the 1915-1937 Temperature rise, or just to the later one ?
Seems to me the same statistics can’t apply to both events.
Trough-to-trough and peak-to-peak are much more sensible ways to look at things rather than artificial metrics like “a century” that have no basis in the natural world as a useful metric. So good job on that, and the results are indeed interesting (and likely more meaningful).
To a Martian this planet is “Waterworld” or “Aquafina”, etc., yet to those who live here it’s “Earth”. Hummmm… we really do need to get our heads out of our back pockets and start looking at and listening to all the pretty blue liquid that (in conjunction with that hot yellow dot in the sky) drives nearly everything we call weather and climate.
Thanks, Juraj. I think you’re on to something.
Juraj, this has to be published quickly, along with predictions for coming weather, arctic ice extent and alpine glacier changes. Can anyone provide help here? The morphing, rehabilitating consensus will otherwise be picking this ripe plum.
Anthony, in the SST and sealevel resources page, I think the sealevel chart should be replaced with one of a much longer record. Going back to the early 90s is not very informative.
For more correlations of AMO with climate phenomena see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm
For more correlations of PDO with climate phenomena see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO.htm
Alabama temperature has a strong correlation with AMO: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Alabama.htm
California temperature has a strong correlation with the PDO: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Alabama.htm
The link for California should have been: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_California.htm
Washington also shows a strong correlation with the PDO: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Washington_usa.htm#pdo
J Bob 7.46am
You will find lots of old records at my site here;
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
You could usefully put a trend line in, because as I have metioned here before the record shows we have been on a gently warming trend since 1698. This was the year that the first petrol car was built and the first jet plane started taking tourists to the New worlds, thereby proving conclusively the warming is ‘our’ fault.
tonyb
About correlation and causation: some correlated things are probably/plausibly independent (driving) variables, others are more likely to be dependent (driven). So the core question is which is more likely to be independent? The oceans win that comparison, hands down.
It remains possible that both the oceans and air temps are dependent, of course. Then the question is “on what”? CO2 is not a plausible answer.
But maybe it’s volcanoes! ;0 😉
The AGW folks have dismissed the ENSO theory because they claim there is no trend over the last century. If we have had increasing temps since the little ice age (300 years ago) then it makes sense to look at a cause that results in at least a 600 year wavelength. Whether this is solar or internal forces I do not know. Volcanic forcings (atmospheric) that result in global dimming are the epitome of short term (1 Year ) wavelengths. I would not be surprised if a six hundred year harmonic could still be resulting from the orbital forcing that brought us out of the last ice age.
Re Leif Svalgaard,September 27, 2010 at 3:31 am
“Laws of Nature says:
September 27, 2010 at 2:49 am
So according to that there is an additional factor: at least a part of the measured warming since then is a recovery from vulcanic cooling.
Thus further diminishing the role of the Sun…”
Dear Leif,
The paper shows, that it is possible to have the same sun activity right now as back then and a warmer temperature nowadays, since due to vulcanism the comparison might be flawed.
(Of course it is also true, that if some of the warming since then is due to recovery from vulcanic dimming, the sun effect is smaller, but your comparison is still not correct)
Kind of off-topic:
Juraj’s Figure 5 brings to mind a perception thing I’ve noticed in my own head.
Sometimes when I picture history as a time line, I view it going left to right (L>R) and sometimes I picture it as R>L.
I will even do this back and forth while thinking of a particular historical event, switching back and forth. I won’t say it is a random thing, but it is pretty close to that. Almost every historical event I picture in my head I see both ways, at different moments/times.
I want to ask others here how you perceive the timeline.
I figure Anthony would want me to take it elsewhere, so my personal blog is at http://feet2thefire.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/a-quick-question-how-do-you-picture-the-historical-timeline/
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks for this persuasive and highly informative article on the AMO.
A post last year referenced a paper by Levine (I think) showing sea temperatures in the Barents Sea down to 1-200 m oscillated by up to 4 deg C and were closely correlated to the AMO going back 100 years. The Barents is close to the Arctic so this supports an AMO forcing of Arctic ice extent.
Sorry no link – writing from my mobile phone. Enter Barents in the WUWT search and you will find it.
Check this out:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8046586/A-stronger-Sun-actually-cools-the-Earth.html