The Atlantic hurricane season has come to an end, and the global warming believers have been looking for records to ascribe to global warming. According to a NOAA news report, the end-of-season flourish of cyclone activity was as predicted, and a record for the period. The BBC Weather commented that the activity corresponded with Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SST) in 2024 being 1°C above the 30-year average (1991-2020) – a year which notably began with a warm Pacific El Niño event. Warm sea surface temperatures are of course an important factor in the development of tropical cyclones, but not the only one: for example, weak wind shear in the upper troposphere is also necessary for organised hurricanes to develop.
The increase in the North Atlantic sea surface temperatures is usually considered a feature of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), sometimes referred to as a variability (AMV). However, one notable climate scientist, Michael Mann, has tried to dismiss the AMO by flattening the historic curve so that the warmer ocean and increased hurricane activity becomes attributable to global warming instead.
The impact of the natural AMO on the climate was briefly discussed in a recent article, along with a discussion of other factors such as changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcanic activity and air pollution. The AMO, which is measured between the equator and 70°N, is arguably more influential on the global climate than ENSO, because of its longer duration. It leads to annualised variation in sea surface temperatures of up to 0.8°C over a period of about 60 to 80 years. During the 1970s there were fears of the return of an Ice Age as Atlantic Ocean waters cooled. Then from the mid-1990s onwards a recovery in the Atlantic sea surface temperatures was observed. This correlated with and contributed to the rise of the global warming narrative. The transition from the cold to warm phase of the AMO also occurred at a time when detailed satellite measurements of several climate parameters became available. The AMO index has continued positive since.
Scientific thought suggests that changes in the AMO are associated with variability in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This larger scale current, which is part of a global thermohaline circulation (a slow-moving system of ocean currents), initially carries warm surface water northwards from the Caribbean Sea. As the water gathers near Greenland it cools and sinks due to an increase in water density. The very slow current then flows as a deep ocean stream to the South Atlantic, before rising back to the surface and completing the circulation via a northward return flow to the equator. The whole process takes about 1,000 years. (The AMOC has also been in the news recently because of fears it might collapse the Gulf Stream and lead to colder winter weather across the U.K.)
Comparisons of the AMO index against the lower atmospheric temperature (from Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH V6.0 satellite temperature dataset from 1979) shows a correlation between the two. Given this apparent connection to global temperatures, a number of research papers have tried to put a figure on the actual influence of the AMO upon the climate. A paper by Tung and Zhou in 2013 suggested that its influence on global warming was of the order of 40% over a 50-year period, i.e., it explains nearly half of the warming trend. The anthropogenic (human-caused) temperature increase is then given in the paper as less than 0.5°C over this period. Chylek et al. in 2014 suggested a slightly lower percentage, arguing that about one third of the warming since 1975 was caused by the AMO. The paper commented that: “The anthropogenic effects account for about two thirds of the post-1975 global warming with one third being due to the positive phase of the AMO.” So, from this we have an approximate warming contribution from the AMO of 33% to 40% by 2014.
Some of the recent global warming then is a feature of the naturally occurring AMO. The AMO is also believed to be a driver of changes to regional weather and climatic conditions in the northern hemisphere, particularly in relation to Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts in Europe and North America, loss of sea ice in the Arctic, and ice melt on Greenland. In 2018 Li et al. commented that: “The Arctic sea ice cover has been rapidly declining in the last two decades, concurrent with a shift in the… (AMO) to its warm phase around 1996/1997.”
But does the AMO actually exist?
Given the significance of this oscillation as an explanation for such things as hurricane frequency and the extent of Greenland and Arctic ice, you might think it is inconvenient for the global warming fear narrative — and you would be right! For this reason, the oscillation has been undermined by at least one leading climate scientist. The AMO was first described by scientists in the 1980s and 1990s; the term “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” being coined by Michael Mann in 2000. Mann of course is well known for playing a part in the development of the ‘hockey stick‘ global temperature graph, showing a steady historic temperature followed by a recent precipitous rise. The evidence of historical warm periods was removed, which had the effect of making recent global warming look more worrying. Mann, who is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University, has subsequently tried to deny that the AMO even exists as a natural oscillation. This again has the effect of flattening the historic curve.
Instead, Mann thinks the oscillation is caused by other factors, especially human activity in recent times, and in 2014 Mann in conjunction with colleagues produced a paper to make their case. The authors argued that historical changes to Atlantic sea surface temperatures in the past century have been caused primarily by warming greenhouse gases, offset by industrial sulphate aerosols that caused cooling but were subsequently cleaned up. Therefore, the amplitude of the AMO should in fact be considered weaker than previously thought, so that the “true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming”.
Mann’s claims were criticised by Nic Lewis, who pointed out that the goal of the paper was to “overturn the current understanding of the AMO”. Following analysis of the claims and complex mathematical code, Lewis commented that “Mann’s case is built on results that do not support his contentions”. He says Mann’s claims are “illusory”, and only superficially compelling. Further, Lewis argues that Mann’s code doesn’t produce the stated results, instead it “produces different results from those shown in his accepted paper”.
In 2021 Mann and colleagues returned to the question of the AMO, this time looking for the cause of multidecadal changes during the past millennium, prior to industrialisation. The suggestion was that they were driven by volcanic forcing, so that “there is no compelling evidence for internal multidecadal oscillations in the climate system”. Mann commented: “My co-authors and I have shown that the AMO is very likely an artefact of climate change driven by human forcing in the modern era and natural forcing in pre-industrial times.” He believes this is the final nail in the coffin of the AMO.
With a degree of sarcasm Judith Curry replied in a lengthy article on her blog:
Wow. In one fell swoop, the pesky problems of the ‘grand hiatus’ in the mid-20th century, debates over the attribution of 20th century warming and the role of multidecadal internal variability, and the difficulty of attributing the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to [anthropocentric global warming], all go away. Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as the Hockey Stick.
She does not accept Mann’s anthropogenic and natural aerosol explanation as the main cause of the AMO, pointing to broader discussions and disagreements amongst climate scientists in this area. The complexity of possible causes, which are not well understood, has been ignored, she noted. As well as differences in ocean currents and the global circulation, changes in weather patterns and short-term climate variability also play a part, alongside possible forcing from solar activity and volcanoes. Furthermore, Curry doesn’t think Mann’s analysis is justified because it is reliant upon poor climate models “which are inadequate in simulating the AMO”.
Curry also sees the bigger picture and issues that are at stake. When differences in phases of the AMO are connected to such things as Atlantic hurricane activity, rates of Greenland ice loss and droughts in Europe and North America, then removal of the oscillation means that attribution falls to manmade climate change instead. Mann even admits in the Penn State press release that the outcome of his work is to make it easier to attribute increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 to global warming. And yet leading authorities do not fully agree with Mann: the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) still acknowledges the link between the naturally occurring AMO and hurricane activity since the mid-1990s.
Summary
Attempts to flatten the AMO curve are not convincing, particularly for climate realists. But Mann’s hypothesis is anyway not fully accepted by the wider scientific community. With that in mind it is evident that a good fraction (perhaps one third) of recent global warming is most likely due to the natural multidecadal cycle, thus lowering estimates of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. The AMO also influences regional changes in the weather and climate, such as Atlantic hurricane activity, rates of Greenland ice loss and Arctic ice cover. Because of this it is difficult to attribute these patterns to anthropogenic global warming.
Having enjoyed some mild winters in the U.K. in the last few years, the AMO is now due to transition back to a cold phase sometime within the next 10 years, even if we should be sceptical of claims that the Gulf Stream will collapse. Either way, this is not a good time to abandon energy security by transitioning away from reliable carbon fuels to intermittent solar and wind power requiring expensive backup facilities. Northwest Europe may be facing several decades of colder winters ahead, just as we move towards Net Zero. But are our political rulers paying attention to important details such as this?
Andrew Sibley is a semi-retired Chartered Meteorologist with an MSc in Environmental Decision-Making and an MPhil in Theology.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“ Kemi Badenoch said that it was “no time for a reality TV star””
As opposed to the party that brought you lockdowns, covid “vaccines”, the biggest lie in history. OK Kemi. Pull the other one.
Says the gaptoothed Nigerian WEF Young Leadership acolyte.
From Churchill to that.
I have my doubts about Farage and Tice but this is good news if the sheeple are starting to wake up.
You really summed her up perfectly in four words:
“From Churchill to that.”
“Farage is weaker on being a “divisive figure”, his closeness to Donald Trump and whether the party has the intellectual depth to actually form a government.”
LMFAO what you mean like the “intellectual depth” of the current government, or the May/Johnson/Sunak adminstrations? Perhaps you have to go back to Blair and Cameron son of Blair to find intellectual depth, employed in destroying our nation.
What did Sunak actually believe in, apart from Technocracy and CBDCs. He was a spineless little cretin.
Money.
Cameron, intellectual skill?! You gotta be joking.
Yeah, perhaps not. He carried on where Blair left off. Maybe he was just a useful idiot.
Well c’mon, be fair everybody has intellectual skill – some like Cameron just not much.
Blair’s intellectual depth was Campbell.
I think Trump is a positive thing for America, and I suspect he has now sussed what an a***hole Farage is and will distance himself from him.
I agree Trump is positive. Safe bet that Farage would be better than Starmer, though that’s a low bar.
No safe bets where Farage is concerned. He’s betrayed so many already
Trump isn’t a divisive figure, he is a disruptor. Good.
The division credited to him occurred before him, particularly during the reign of His Eminence St Barry of Obama and years of poison dripping out of the Democrat slander machine, and was what created the Trump MAGA movement.
Farage isn’t divisive, that division has been created by successive Governments since the war, first along class lines now ethnic multi-culti lines. “Diversity” means apart, different, unlike.
Farage, like Trump is a creation of that, but I don’t think he is a disruptor – pity.
Yes I generally agree. Politics is about differences of opinion, sometimes strong. We need proper opposition, not a Uniparty.
I would say Trump is more “divisive” than Farage because he’s less polished and DGAF in his manner and attitude. I would also say that Farage played a big part in the “disruption” that was the Brexit referendum.
Trump 2.0 has been better than 1.0, though this is concerning: Hey, At Least We Bombed Somebody – Ann Coulter
Where Trump scores over Farage is that the US seems to have much more vigorous opposition to state overreach.
“Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind”
Is that really something to boast about, the most hated PM only one point behind!
Some good news here too, though it does just say ”delay”, not ”cancel”;
”The Sentencing Council is to delay the introduction of its two-tier guidance after being threatened with emergency legislation to block it by the Government.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/31/sentencing-council-suspends-two-tier-guidelines-backlash/
But if that’s the case, does that mean this no longer applies?
”Transgender and ethnic minority people are being given priority for bail under new guidelines drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.
Judges and magistrates are being told to prioritise those groups because they may be at ‘disproportionately higher risk’ if they are held in custody.
The guidelines asks judges to consider that some defendants may have experienced trauma through racism and discrimination.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14553135/ethnic-minority-suspects-priority-bail.html
He just scrapes past Starmer. Says it all.
What are we to make of those who complain about Reform and Farage.
They are not satisfied that a party relaunched in the face of opposition by the elites and MSM has broken through the support levels of the old parties in under a year.
They query or condemn Farage because he does not exclusively champion their pet issue or does not use language they want – divisive, vote losing language and likely illegal in today’s authoritarian Britain.
Are they elite party agents. Are they determined to be defeated in glory. They have certainly not thought through the way to victory.
For me the jury is out and I will take stock when I need to – at the next General Election. They probably deserve a chance but have not always inspired my confidence. Bear in mind that those of us who are on the political right have been burned and betrayed by Tories who talk a good fight. I do not doubt for a minute your sincerity nor the sincerity of many at grass roots level.
Regarding the “divisive, vote losing language” – Trump got away with it. But perhaps the US is different.
Nonsense. We were all foolish enough to believe in Farage and Reform, even though he had “previous” in destroying two other successful “patriot parties” he set up, until he clearly showed his hand:
He’s going to pull another “Bait & Switch”, called Tommy Robinson “scum” while feigning concern for British children, allowed Yet Another Pakistani Muslim to buy the Reform party, rewrite its rules to allow the Muslim to be elected as Reform party leader in the future by flooding the party with new Muslim members, unjustly “vetted” and banned true patriots for criticising the Invading Muslim Army or Pakistani Muslim Child Rapists, and supported the Muslim and two female “plants” in falsely accusing Rupert Lowe for being too popular with the public.
A Vote for Reform is a Vote for the Caliphate.
My question is can he head a team rather than antagonise anyone who tries to work with him?
That would be a resounding NO. Take a look at Andrew Eborn’s interview of the journalist Martin Jay
https://youtu.be/KFYghpe5OpQ?feature=shared
MJ knows Farage well, and has done for years and even appears to have a bit of a soft spot for him but if even he condemns the man…… Farage is incapable of working with anyone who may prove to be cleverer or more popular that he is, he has to be top dog at all times. You cannot put together a decent team with an attitude like that. The Rupert Lowe saga reveals that it is impossible to sort things out with Farage behind closed doors and RL has been forced to go public. Rupert Lowe’s fate was sealed the moment that Elon Musk declared that he would make a better leader of Reform than Farage and that the latter just wasn’t up to the job. I wonder what Trump thinks of him now? It would be very interesting to know
If you’d had direct experience of working for Reform, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. Yusuf & Farage are also fans of the WEF so beware sheep in wolves’ clothing
No sane person can be fan of the WEF,,,it is run by lunatics.
I think it’s likely Reform will get more votes than any other party at the next general election but if they finish second in a large number of constituencies they might not be the largest party in the next parliament. Even if Reform are the largest party Farage’s chances of becoming the next PM could be pretty slim if the other parties form an “anti populist” coalition as has happened in Germany and Austria.
Given how low the turnout was at the last election Reform needs to put a huge amount of effort into convincing the millions of people that are totally disillusioned with politics/the uniparty that they are sufficiently different that it’s worth voting for them, even if people have never voted before/not voted for a long time.
I cancelled my Reform membership this morning. Letter below …
Can you please cancel my membership.
I believe Nigel Farage to be the most effective political figure since Margaret Thatcher.
So why the resignation? Two reasons.
1. We now have 109 thousand illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are military age Muslim men. By the time of the next election this figure will multiply many times.
2. Rupert Lowe rightly stated they must be detained and deported. Mr Farage has rejected this, further adding he can’t confront Islam. For no reason I can justify, he appointed a Muslim CEO to Reform. I don’t hate Muslims, but Islam, by definition, means ‘submission’. I can no longer be party to a movement led by a Muslim. If this changes, I’ll consider rejoining.
I’d be happy to speak to you further if this helps. I’m sure you’re aware many, if not most of your members feel the same way.
Sincerely
Hats off to you, Neil of Watford, for telling the truth, and backing it up by real action!
Indeed Neil, well said. I resigned from the party a couple of weeks ago – and my goodness don’t they make it difficult! I’ve now put in a Subject Access Request with which they have a month to comply. Since they are now so keen on GDPR and NDAs I thought I’d give them a taste of their own medicine. I’ve also demanded confirmation that their ‘membership’ ticker has been adjusted and my instructions have been followed. I too would be willing to rejoin if Yusuf either resigns or is removed but Farage has proved just how untrustworthy he is too so I’d prefer the ‘party’ to be led by someone else – but of course, since it is still a plc with Farage & Yusuf as the two directors, this seems unlikely. They were supposed to democratise the ‘party’ but merely made it Reform UK (2025) Ltd and as such they don’t have members, they just have subscribers. Weasels the pair of them
Nigel topped the poll, conducted by the French polling company Ipsos, as “best prime minister”, from which Rupert Lowe’s name was excluded, and the article celebrating this was written by Yet Another Muslim, Kamal Ahmed, whose English mother is from Rotherham, World’s First Children’s Capital of Culture (??!!), and Ethnic African Muslim father is from Sudan, one of the countries famous for slaughtering Christians and burning down their churches.
A VOTE FOR REFORM is a VOTE FOR THE CALIPHATE.
Farage is a despicable, dishonourable, lying, egomaniacal, self-serving politician. Surely there is enough information about him now for everyone to realise that, and not vote for any party he and his equally unpleasant co-owner Yusef are involved in. There are other Polls that put Farage at 7% even that is far higher than he should be.
Well what a pity the man is a charlatan and will never cross the finishing line. He’s shown by his treatment of his hitherto greatest asset – Rupert Lowe – that he’s as shallow as a puddle after the sun’s been out for a couple of hours and that he’s incapable of building a team around him. Who on earth would he have in his cabinet? Let’s hope we have some time for an alternative to emerge before the next GE. Ask yourselves why they would want to bring in NDAs for branch officials? What are they trying to hide? I’m sure you’ve seen me post on here previously that I was a branch Treasurer for Reform but I won’t vote for them now whilst Farage & Yusuf are at the helm. I’d rather vote Monster Raving Loony Party or spoil my ballot paper.
Good for you…..it was his behaviour towards Tommy, that damned him, for me.
“Ipsos reveals that when asked who would do a “good job as Prime Minister”, Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind,”
Keir Starmer is just 1% behind? That’s not reassuring. Who are these mindless blobs who think Starmer is doing a “good job”?
I despair.
Government employees and SS benefit winners.