Talk:Atlantic multidecadal oscillation

message: WP:LEAD. — jdorje (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Much is needed. It reads like a copy/paste job of the AOML (PD) site...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: No discussion regarding the importance of wind shear in regards to hurricane formation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjunkit (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind Shear

message: This article made numerous (almost POV) references to Kerry Emanuel's 2005 research into global warming and hurricane intensity.  He has recently retracted these positions and now wonders if surface temperatures even matter as much as we thought for hurricanes, and he says he no longer sees much of a link at all between global warming and hurricanes.
Here is the citation from his personal article that we should probably work into this article to replace the obsolete text I removed.
.
Gigs (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be using newspaper articles in preference to scientific papers. You seem to be over-interpreting it, and I'm not sure your removal was good. That said, we shouldn't rely on one researcher too much William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I might have taken it too far, but Emanuel's 2005 work spurred a massive debate, which lead to him and others developing new models that no longer predict the same things at all.  This is a rapidly evolving field, and one of the things that his 2005 work exposed was the unreliability of historical data prior to 1970.  Here's Emanuel's bibliography, lots of good information here: http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/cvweb/cvweb.html  Gigs (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry Emanuel's postition 

message: The article says: 
:The frequency of weak-category storms—tropical storms and weak hurricanes—is not strongly correlated with the AMO. However, during warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into major hurricanes is significantly greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. 
What is the source for this claim added by User:Denfield almost 4 years ago? I'm asking because Chylek & Lesins (2008) basically claim the opposite: 
:Comparing the last 28 years (1980–2007) with the preceding 28 years (1953–1980), we find a modest increase in the number of minor hurricanes (category 1 and 2); however, we find no increase in the number of major hurricanes (category 3–5).
Could somebody help to clarify this? --bender235 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After no reply for three months, I'm going to change that statement now. --bender235 (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak or strong hurricanes influenced by AMO? 

message: 14.7.6 "The AMO has a quasi-periodicity of about 70 years, although the approximately 150-year instrumental record possesses only a few distinct phases—warm during approximately 1930–1965 and after 1995, and cool between 1900–1930 and 1965–1995." https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf prokaryotes (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: AR5

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: The article defines the AMO and its effects. Can we say anything about what causes the (noisy) cycle and why it should be about 70 years ? Rod57 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a single accepted mechanism yet.  Knight et al (2005, GRL) argue based on AOGCM results that it results from an unforced oscillation of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Dima and Lohmann (2007, J. Cli.) propose that it is caused by an atmosphere-ocean-sea ice interaction. In their mechanism atmosphere-ocean coupling in the North Pacific amplifies a circulation anomaly that affects the export of Arctic ice through the Fram Strait (east of Greenland).  Changes in sea ice export then affect North Atlantic salinity and thus the strength of the thermohaline circulation. The mechanisms in these two articles could be consistent with one another, though AOGCMs don't usually do a good enough job with sea ice to pick up on things like the coupling that Dima and Lohmann propose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That would make a great addition to Atlantic multidecadal oscillation#Mechanisms. Rod57 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What theories are there as to the length of the AMO 

message: In the latest NOAA update there is a mention to "Tropical Multidecadal signs".
Anybody can confirm whether these the same as the AMO?
If so, given the importance of NOAA jargon, I believe a redirect should be created for Tropical Multidecadal Oscillation
MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Same as Tropical Multidecadal Oscillation?

message: We say:
: Their histogram of zero crossing intervals from a set of five re-sampled and smoothed version of Gray et al (2004) index together with the Maximum Likelihood Estimate gamma distribution fit to the histogram, showed that the largest frequency of regime interval was around 10–20 year... Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years
which makes little sense. Is the period 10-20 years or 70? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126030955/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/phod/amo_faq.php to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826113823/http://old.usclivar.org/Newsletter/Variations_V3N3/Enfield.pdf to http://old.usclivar.org/Newsletter/Variations_V3N3/Enfield.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505051115/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/phod/d2m_shift/index.php to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/d2m_shift/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126030955/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/phod/amo_faq.php to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505051115/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/phod/d2m_shift/index.php to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/d2m_shift/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is incomprehensible to an average Wikipedia user. It uses esoteric, verbose, and an unnecessarily dense language style that does not clearly communicate the meaning. 
It should be simplified and broken down into more manageable terms Jlscharr (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Verbose and Academic