Ok, well here is the thing. You say, "it does not explain why those features are all correlated or why the AMO brings them about" -- and I agree.
AMO is nothing but change in SSTs due to changing circulation in the ocean. Period. We can agree on this, correct?
Just for completeness for those reading the thread (if it's anyone else but Clark and I!), these other atmospheric factors they show in the graphic are favorable easterly jet, lower wind shear, lower surface pressures, favorable upper level easterlies, higher pressure in the upper atmosphere, and weaker easterly trades.
The other region of ocean temps that impact the forecast and that are mentioned, of course, is ENSO, but let's put that aside for the moment.
Now, if there is some difference in the meaning of the odd phrase that they use, "multi-decadal signal," that is different than AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), then definitely fill me in. Otherwise let me use them interchangeably, here, and just use AMO because it is easier to type (and because it has a specific definition that is consistent across the board).
NOAA has a slide saying all the atmospheric changes are part and parcel of the AMO, and it they say it as well:
"conditions associated with the multi-decadal signal...include considerably warmer than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs), lower wind shear, reduced sea level pressure, and a more conducive structure of the African easterly jet."
So, yes, they are saying, basically, it is all due to SSTs. That follows, logically. So...can we agree on that point?
So I don't know what to say about Chris's response, since they can't argue it both ways.
So I agree with you as far as not attributing everything necessarily to warmer SSTs, but that's not what the NOAA forecast says. I just want to provide another link here to a NOAA slide that correlates ACE values to tropical NATL SSTs showing that SSTs drive the total energy of the hurricane season.
I feel like their hurricane seasonal forecast is one of the best because they identify all these conditions that will make it more conducive for TC to develop. No one else explains all these variables so well, and especially in the accompanying graphics. They may not know climate science, but they understand what conditions in the ocean and atmosphere cause hurricanes to form, probably better than any other group.
So why do they even dabble in the climate science? It isn't needed for the forecast; it's just added in there. Over and over again, it says that everything is due to the AMO, but that doesn't even need to be in the forecast to begin with.
Then, if you take their assertion, that everything is due to the AMO (being in a phase where the circulation is more active), producing warmer SSTs, and this host of other conditions, the only question becomes, is that true that the AMO is in this active phase?
Well, lots of evidence points to the fact that it is not, and, in conjuction with this, there's evidence that there are other causes for the warmer SSTs.
So, why hang onto the AMO so completely, in the face of years of scientific measurements and analyses contradicting it? It's just too illogical to be based on anything scientific, and, coincidentally, there is Bush's political agenda to discount global warming. So how can you not put 2 and 2 together.
The thing is, they aren't climate scientists, so they can't take the time to do research in that area. But you'd think that there would be some scientific studies, from climate scientists, they could reference in the field to support this claim. But there is not a single one. Not a one.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: Paint me confused
Edit
Reply
Quote
