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.
Wrong again, Gates. You believe in models. But they are trumped by observations.
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.
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.
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…
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.
R.Gates, I’ve got to tell you that, as more and more contrary evidence continues to pile in, the fainter your voice becomes.
“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?
I think Gates is one handed typing again. Sights in Durban too much for him.
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.
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.
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.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5997/ohcnatlpacific.png
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.
matt v. says:
December 11, 2011 at 6:14 am
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/
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!”)
“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.
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?
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.
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
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.
“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.