{"id":419369,"date":"2026-01-01T18:58:52","date_gmt":"2026-01-01T17:58:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419369"},"modified":"2026-01-01T18:58:54","modified_gmt":"2026-01-01T17:58:54","slug":"climate-change-perceptions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=419369","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change Perceptions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), also referred to as Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), is a natural, large-scale climate pattern characterized by long-term fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the North Atlantic Ocean. It alternates between warm (positive) and cool (negative) phases, each typically lasting 20\u201340 years, with a full cycle of about 60\u201380 years. The AMO index is derived from detrended, area-averaged SST anomalies in the North Atlantic (usually 0\u00b0\u201370\u00b0N).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roger Caiazza,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have been meaning to write this post for a long time because I think there is an important distinction about climate change that could potentially be affected by reducing GHG emissions that is not generally recognized.  I have postponed this article because I did not want to try to explain the driving factor for my concern \u2013 ocean and atmospheric oscillations.  Andy May is a petrophysicist<\/a> who has a climate blog<\/a> that recently published 14 articles about atmospheric oscillations that I have used in this post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act<\/a> (Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good<\/a> if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  Moreover, I take the heretical position that our understanding of the causes of climate change are not understood well enough to support the idea that reducing GHG emissions represents sound policy.  I have been a practicing meteorologist for nearly 50 years, was a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, and have B.S. and M.S. degrees in meteorology.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weather and climate are often confused.  According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\u2019s National Ocean Service<\/a> \u201cWeather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.\u201d  They go on to say: \u201cClimate is what you expect, weather is what you get.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The standard climatological average is 30 years.  It is important to understand that programs like the Climate Act\u2019s GHG emission reduction targets are intended to reduce global warming over longer time scales than 30 years.  Statements suggesting that even if aggressive mitigation reduces greenhouse gases  that temperature will still increase<\/a> for 20-30 years due to inertia in the climate system are based on the premise that CO2 is the control knob for the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I often hear and have noticed myself that \u201cwinters aren\u2019t what they used to be\u201d and that leaves are turning color later than the past.  The goal of this article is to show that there are climatic oscillations with time periods greater than 30 years that are likely causing these perceived examples of climate change.  However, I will show there is no connection between those observations and the value of the Climate Act as a potential reason to reduce GHG emissions in hopes of changing those observations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Oscillation Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this year Andy May published 14 articles about climate oscillations in the oceans and atmosphere. I think his analysis is notable because it is data driven.  The basis of his analysis is articles describing observed oceanic and atmospheric changes, not modeled simulations.  Given the complexity of the interactions between oceans and the atmosphere and the poor understanding of their relationships, assuming that modeled simulations are credible is not reasonable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

His articles provide compelling evidence that each of the 14 oscillations is natural.  I believe his work provides sufficient evidence proving that \u201ceach oscillation is natural and has been around since the pre-industrial period, or even earlier, and thus is natural and not random variability.\u201d  This is important relative to claims that reducing the GHG emissions will affect global temperatures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

May\u2019s work consists of a statistical regression analysis of observed features in the oceans and atmospheres that have occurred over many years.  He uses the HadCRUT5  global average temperature data set used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to track global warming in his analyses.  May offers the following caveat<\/a> about his work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Finally, this is a regression analysis to predict HadCRUT5 with climate oscillations to try and detect the climate oscillations that best correlate to \u201cglobal warming.\u201d This is not a climate model, it is not an attempt to make a climate model, it is only a statistical exercise. Statistics and statistical analysis are not proof of anything, it isn\u2019t even scientific analysis, they are just useful tools to sort through datasets. Just as AI is not intelligent, statistics is not science, both are useful tools.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Climate Oscillations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

May\u2019s work consisted of the following posts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n