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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
>>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….
.
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.
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.
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:-)
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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>)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.climatedata.info/resources/Forcing/Oscillations/01-El-Nino-index.gif
“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.
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
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-Dispatches/dp/023115254X?tag=vglnk-c905-20
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.
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.
http://navalwarchangesclimate.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/what-is-climate/
Nothing new under the sun !!!
“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.