lørdag, februar 24, 2018

In the dead of night

Oh I remember when the world was young
When we in sunny meadows played
When we on loves wings were flung
As the sun on the heaven stayed
We kissed with blooming soft petals its rays

As the frosts of hell now grip my soul
A time of wonder I vaguely behold
When everything in the world was new
And I felt the pleasure of admiring you
But a night too cold has set the sun, and hence my memory too

The remains of the day are ghostly rot
As I go in search of my final lot
Under a pale moon my sight will fail
And of my minds eye I shall avail
To see you vainly howling, under a moon so very pale

Hold on to fake and wakeful purpose
Keep busy with amazing pose
Till that ghastly touch of night, your soul receives in dose
And that howl becomes a melody so sad
That no distractions anymore will keep a man from going mad

Once the world was veiled in innocence
As a sun burned a clear blue sky
Now a dark night rules and my star spells past tense
Under the world its fleeting light, in murky waters die
To conceive a seed for fire to light the world up high

And all the ten thousand things will be forgiven
When anew, a sun ascends unto the heavens
From that dimly light of dying night
The bounty of creation is once again in sight
Rise and shine you happy few who endured the long, long night


tirsdag, februar 20, 2018

The North Atlantic climatic regimes

In the next weeks the weather over much of the world is going to change from a (relatively) warm and moist climate to a cooler and rainier one. The jet stream travelling over the north Atlantic Ocean will be split in two. Directing low and high pressure systems away from a warming zonal (east/west) transport mode into a cooling meridional mode (south/north). This at least according to simulations (And we all know how much we can trust simulations – right?). Well, no matter the outcome it provides me with some illuminating graphical presentations – courtesy of the Danish Meteorological
Institute. Here’s the outline:

Idealized causality

South Atlantic mode: The high pressure system located roughly at the Azores Islands will weaken and displace west towards the Caribbean and the Mexican Gulf - suppressing low pressure convection in that region – while being replaced in the east by a low pressure system, that will replace the suppressed (high pressure easterly trade winds) convection regime in the Mediterranean Sea with an enhanced one.

North Atlantic mode: The Greenland high pressure system will weaken and displace east to Scandinavia while the Icelandic low pressure system will displace west towards the Labrador Sea causing warming and enhanced precipitation in Greenland and the reverse in Scandinavia/Northern Europe.

In effect this is a reversal of the warming regime which transports equatorial waters into the arctic: This atmospheric meridional mode of transport translates into a southerly shift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone -: The location of warm equatorial surface waters), because the placement of a low pressure system by the Azores Islands essentially reverses the direction of the trade winds enhancing the Northwest African monsoon system by pushing warm equatorial waters south along the African plate boundary. A statistical enhancement of this regime on decadal and centennial time scales will suppress the ability of the North Atlantic gyre systems (circulating ocean currents subject to wind regimes) to transport equatorial surface waters into the arctic (the AMOC: Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation).

Further: Due to the plate configuration of the South American continent it causes a split of the equatorial zonal transport of warm water currents caused by easterly trade winds and the general circulation of the Atlantic central gyres: One moving south along the plate boundary into the Circumpolar Current around Antarctica another into the Caribbean gyre systems up the the east American coast and into the North Atlantic and eventually Arctic gyre systems. Consequently, a southerly shift of the ITCZ will effectively direct more warm water to the circumpolar current due to the splitting caused by South America and hence lesser amounts can be attributed to the North Atlantic section of the AMOC.

The warming and cooling regimes of the North Atlantic which on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales have numerous causes and effects and translates to the dominant mode of the AO (Arctic Oscillation) are documented in the Greenland Ice-cores; by which you can almost set the clock for civilizational collapse and migrations of peoples. The general effect of the AO, which is a product of temperature regimes in the arctic serves to displace the climate zones north/south and thus historically - and constantly - have moved peoples which survival technologies were adapted to certain climates: just like other animals, and plants as well, we have danced to the rhythm of climate change trough out our history.

Significant historical events

  • 3000-BC: Migrations from the Pontic Steppe brings the tamed horse to Europe and the Middle East (i.e. Yamna, Corded ware and Bell Beaker).
  • 2200-BC: Collapse of Old kingdom in Egypt and of the Akkadian empire in the Levant. Chariots from the steppe arrives in Europe and the Middle East.
  • 1200: Late bronze age collapse of Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations and end to Egyptian empire.
  • 100-AD: the Alans followed by the Huns and the Turkish.
  • 600-AD: the Vikings.
  • 1100-AD: the Mongol Golden Horde

All dates are subject to margin of errors but should be fairly correct within ca. +/- 100 years.


tirsdag, februar 07, 2017


I have recently aquired a technical report from DMI (Danish Meterological Institute) on air temperatures for several location in Greenland. In response to the fairly clear picture these data present I would like to post some observations for the DMI which I believe a responsible journalist ought to pick up and relay - and maybe even ask some critical questions while they're at it (Who am I kidding?).

The reason I surmise is the following:

There has been no significant warming in Greenland since the 1940'es the data shows, an observation likewise born out by DMI's own statement on their research into sea surface temperatures in Greenland coastal regions, where the conclusion tranlates to:

Generally the sediment cores show, that calving has been extensive not only in the first decade of 21st century but also in the 30'es and 40'es of the 20th century. Both periods have seen relavtively mild air conditions and warmer subsurface, sea temperatures, as well as less sea ice.

This happy news however seem to be somewhat absent from press coverage on the topic: Since today in an article in a danish newspaper I could read this amazing statement:

Til BBC siger seniorforsker Friederikke Otto fra Oxford-universitetets klimaforskningsinstitut, at før industrialderens begyndelse ville en sådan hedebølge have været »ekstremt sjælden« og statistisk set noget i retning af en 1.000 års begivenhed.

Which roughly translates to:

To the BBC senior scientist Friederikke Otto from Oxford-university Climate research center says, that before the industrial age such a heatwave [in the area of svalbard, east of north Greenland] would have been extremely rare - likely a 1.000 year event.

And as for the DMI? Well, Martin Stendel - a climate & polar research scientist at the DMI -  firmly back up this lady's remarkable assesment, that the warmth can only be explained in terms of human influence on the climate.

It has become a rule by now, that a climate scientist can say anything to the press and get it on print as a matter of truth (They are the priests - sorry, experts, after all). Unfortunately for Friedrikke & Martin reality bears no resemblence to their claims (priests rarely are in touch with reality - but they don't care: they get to eat steak), and it can be quite easily demonstrated.

To that purpose we must look at the DATA!

To do that we establish a fairly logical correlation between icecore data, seasurface data and airtemperatures in the north Atlantic. Not surprisingly the data show, that the icecores registers warmth in Greenland as the Atlantic Ocean temperatures go up - the air temperatures
follow the same pattern.

It is thus fairly safe to logically conclude that icecores reflect changes in both sea and air temperatures, and that these temperatures are indicative of heat transported by the ocean waters of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic basins.

Now we can illustrate using the icecores, that the air temperatures on Svalbard are very likely to have been higher at almost any time you care to pick before the industrial era, than they are today.

There are some further conclusions: either the climatologists are incompetent or we are being straight out lied to. It's either that or these people are now so convinced by their own hype, that they've forsaken reality for an oblivious fantasy. You can make your own assumptions about the media, but I think that in general people are becomming aware of the problems with journalists. Unfortunately this is reckless, careless and shamefull misuse of the public trust.

søndag, januar 22, 2012


Recently I stumpled upon this graph on the WUWT Ocean Oscillations refference page:

It's an undetrended AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) graph. Normaly, what you get, if you research the AMO on say Wikipedia, is this graphics:

And then you get this definition:

The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias effects of global warming.

Ever since I first read this, I have been wondering what the abolished trend would look like. However, it can be time consuming in the extreme to hunt these datasets down, and my first attempts failed, until I saw the term on WUWT: not detrended. - That did the job with Google.

So let me show you some graphs I've made or collected, which I firmly believe call into question the premis for this somewhat biased procedure. I got myself an undetrended AMO dataset, calculated the anomalies and made comparisons with some other datasets.

First graph shows the difference between the AMO datasets: detrended & undetrended. The detrended dataset obviously have zero trend (yellow) and the undetrended dataset has a trend of 0.4 degrees C. Is this important? Oh, yes: it's extremely important.

Next graph shows Nasa GISSTemp dataset and the undetrended (what a weird word) AMO anomalies. Normally I would be forced to include a second Y axis, when comparing trends in two very different datasets (One is regional SST, the other global atmosphere). Not in this case though: the  intensities match to a tee.

Notice that while the GISS Temp data depart from the AMO around 1970 the UAH data seem a somewhat better fit during this period. Is this coincidental? Not very likely, no... GISS manipulates the data, and the result is very often a warming trend. Click the right handside image to play an animation, which slides between two GISS U.S. temperature anomaly charts:

The first dataset is from 2007 and the second (PDF, Fig. 6) is from 1999. I know of no reasonable argument, which would justify concistently making the past colder and the present warmer. Nevertheless GISS is relentless.

The AMO matches phases of solar cycle length as well as it matches global temps, U.S. Temps and Nortern Hemisphere temps:

So what's going on? I think it has to do with the fact, that the Atlantic of all the worlds oceans has the only major inlet to the Arctic Ocean; which in the unlikely event, that you did not hear about it, is currently melting it's summer sea ice. In short: it's been warming in the Arctic. Not surprisingly this warming follows the AMO anomaly. Probably the Arctic IS the AMO and by extension 'global' warming caused by the sun. Why is it not co2 warming the Arctic and then warming the Atlantic?
This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias effects of global warming.
This statement makes the rather absurd assumption, that any AMO SST warming beyond 1 degree must be due to co2. Which is arguably false:

Greenland is located right where the AMO is most influential. The GISP II icecore data show plenty of natural variation from a time, where co2 never rose above 280 ppm. Al Gore in the film 'An inconvenient truth' uses Vostock (Antarctic) ice core proxies as global indicators of both temperatures and CO2 reaching 700.000 years back into the Pleiocene to show that the two are correlated. Actually, according to the chart on the left (GISP II, Arctic) temperature and co2, throughout the holocene, seem inversely related.

All this being true, it is then either wrong, deceptive or both to argue that virtually any rising SST trend in the North Atlantic region for the last 155 years must be caused by human industri. - I can't stress enough, how genuinely weird that claim is! - It amounts to denial...

Do we see anything untowards or in any way unusual in the icecore data? The answer must be a very firm: abolutely not! Right up until 1993 there's not a trace of warming, which might not be absolutely natural. Actually the trends for the last one thousand years show a full degree of average cooling and placing the 1940'es in a warmer place than the early 1990'es. - Where have I seen that before...?

But what about the warming since 1780: is it not incredibly unnatural - and to die from? No, it is completely within the bounds of natural variabillity and has been repeated too many times to count throughout the holocene, where at times temperatures were 1,5 degrees C hotter.

As we have seen: since 1993 Arctic temperatures went up by an average degree C. By the same token: at the present rate of decline temperatures could be back to 1993, which also happens to be 1978, levels in 6 years. To top it off: under a global warming scenario, where you have got to detrend the AMO, because it must be under the influence, you would expect the Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica to show some warming as well. It does not:

It seems to me quite obvious then, that instead of changing sound data, to accomplish nothing but obscuring facts, it is much simpler to assume that the state of the Arctic is generally derived from North Atlantic SST or vice versa, and manifests itself in 'global' temperature products.  Both of which coincidentaly follows the phases of solar cycle length rather neatly.

From the Danish Meterological Institutes survay of glacier melt in east Greenland: 
Overordnet viser sedimentkernen, at kælvningen har været stor ikke alene i 00'erne, men også midt i forrige århundrede omkring 30'erne og 40'erne. Det er begge perioder, hvor der også var relativt varmt i både luften og de dybere vandlag samt relativ mindre havis end normalt.
The text translates to:
Generally the sediment cores show, that calving has been extensive not only in the first decade of 21st century but also in the 30'es and 40'es of the 20th century. Both periods have seen relavtively mild air conditions and warmer subsurface, sea temperatures, as well as less sea ice.
Many times on this blog I have also quoted these statements of times passed:

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937.

The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970 

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008.

There is yet another ocean which shares the same latitudes as the North Atlantic, and that would be the North Pacific. As it happens that ocean also undergo drastic climatic change on decadal time scales. This Pacific climate variabillty is reffered to as the PDO:
Updated standardized values for the PDO index, derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean, poleward of 20N. The monthly mean global average SST anomalies are removed to separate this pattern of variability from any "global warming" signal that may be present in the data.
In other words: We assume (no argument) that the PDO cannot be the cause of "global warming", so we detrend by subtracting the "global" average mean... This biased top -> down approach eliminates from the outset any possibility that "global warming" could be a regional phenomenon which in time propagates, possibly through both the physical and mathematical universe, to become "global warming". For instance it cannot due to this axiom be assumed, that for reasons as of yet unknown the Atlantic Ocean responds to some aspect of solar cycle properties which modulate Arctic climate in turn influencing the North Pacific.

The graph on the right handside is the result of an experiment: I scaled PDO data to 1/6 and added AMO data. Remember that the PDO is essentially detrended by the global SST mean, which has a rising linear trend, so the PDO/6+AMO is probably too warm in the past and too cold in the present. However, do not fail to concider another likely contributing source to the descrepancy: GISS adjustments. Adjustments have at least two purposes: 1) increase trend to overstate warming and 2) eliminate variation, because models cannot simulate them. This produce two distinct signatures: 1) early datapoints are adjusted negative, late datapoints are adjusted positive and 2) 40'es warm episode and 70'es cold episode are flattened. The second graph on the right is provided from Hansen et al. 1981 (PDF) for comparison.

Bearing all this in mind: the fit to GISSTemp is nevertheless striking. Note: NH is short for Northern Hemisphere.

Curriously specific items can be located in bulk at the same lattitudes as the North Pacific and North Atlantic: the majority of the worlds thermometers. Actual instruments make readings in a local setting, any subsequent  manouvers (methods) are nothing but abstractions, which in the end ensures that the 'regions' excibiting variation become 'global' phenomena?

In information theory we would term the global temperature anomaly products: a loss of information; we loose a lot to gain a little. That 'gain', having little intrinsic scientific value, lies mainly in the message department: clear, simple and visual. Waging an information war with as little information as possible is ironically the sign and predicament of 'the information age' - which started long before the 1980'es: back then it was termed propaganda.

Probability theory will tell you that rolling a die should result in one particular side showing face up every 1 in 6 rolls. However, anyone who actually rolls dice on a regular basis will know, that real dice do not conform to this theoretical prescription. Does that make probability theory useless? No, but you sure as hell better understand its limitation (it's an abstraction) before you walk into a casino with your life savings. Or in the case of the western world: the money you borrowed in China.

As an aside, the psycological analysis is equally damning: The prophets of doom are vastly more interested in the moral implications than in the scientific ones: When you need to control someone - any righteuos preacher will know this - there's no greater enemy than knowledge and no more effective a tool than guild, which entails the need for payment and sacrifice in order to evade almighty wrath. Organized religion has preyed upon this (insecure) human need for absolution throughout history - it's the precursor of all psycologically incarnated power.

For all our rational and scientific aspirations we fail these concepts misserably: had we any other prospect we would humbly admit to our innermost desires and walk into this religious trap at the very least with our eyes open. But that would spoil the emmotional effect, and we would then emmidiately start looking for a substitute outlet: how to build yet another virtual pyramid on the backs of the poor, while enscribing those scientific tombs with monumental 'rationalisations' concerning our good will towards men - and our oh so selfless desire to save them from themselves.


tirsdag, december 13, 2011

Predictions II

So, it's been nine days since I reflected on atmospheric pressure observations some 4 km aloft, which indicated predictive skills: possibly as much as 14 days in advance.

Meanwhile I've reached a few conclusions: It seems to me, that it is indeed possible to predict, at least in sketch, stormtrack behaviour from examining lofty pressure. I believe the limit is probably 10 days. Since the data is published 5 days late of it's conception, that might give me a lead of 5 days. It's very difficult however to say anything precise about the behaviour on the ground: low pressure systems can easily develop below the high pressure umbrella.

However, there may be a theme to those developments: they seem to cause more wind than precipitation and they die quickly. Why exactly, that would be, if it is true, I don't know, but I can venture a guess: If low pressure systems cannot send winds aloft due to higher pressure above it would inhibit the adiabatic lapse rate. That is: expansion is limited by the inhibited ability to condense water wapour by ascend to higher altitude. The air is recycled lower in the atmosphere and remains moist. This may result in higher wind speeds, lower precipitation rates and higher temperature - though I might be wrong about this.

About predictive skills, I'll try to give an example:

Several things from the animation above should be noticed: First the movement of high pressure into the scandinavian area; remember that this is in a height of 4 km and would not be emmediately felt on the ground (this is the predictive skill foundation). Second thing to notice is the low pressure area emmanating from the labrador sea (NE America). Normally in a NAO+ scenario (which we have), this would move towards iceland, but is deflected by the pressure cell aloft in the North Atlantic towards Southern Europe and North Africa.

This is classic NAO- behaviour, but it is not reflected on the ground (not yet). This low pressure deflection aloft happened between the 1st and the 9th of december. now let's look at ECMWF model for the comming week. These are the start conditions (note: these pick will change every twelve hours and soon be outdated):

The deflection may not yet seem apparent, but there is an opportunistic component to this: As low pressure systems are spawned by the evaporating ocean low in the atmosphere, they  prey on preexisting low pressure conditions higher in the atmosphere to grow by condensing water wapour aloft. This is what we call jetstreams.

By cooling the oceans through evaporation the atmosphere grows warmer and expands due to condensation, and these hotspots of condensation cirkulates the globe doing work on other airmasses, while they penetrate high into the atmosphere draining themselves of water. Probably this convective process of cooling is what renders the greenhouse effect almost mute, because it does not rely on radiation, but mecanical work: any co2 effect simply becomes part of the convective forces and speeds them up by a tiny fraction.

Later the model seems to pick up on the opportunities and lacks thereof provided by the upper atmosphere:

This is about a week from events aloft. There is discrepancy in latitude by maybe as much as 10 degrees or even beyond. I suspect, that implies the faster movement of air aloft, which schews the atmospheric vertical column.

In the Norwegian Sea and Scandinavia low pressure conditions at low altitude is still prevalant and may stay so, since SST's are anomalously high:

Also the high altitude high pressure block seems to be fading fast, and it's possibly these high SST's, that are wasting it. Never the less: at very high altitude, it's much colder than normal:

As warmth gradually moves out of the Scandinavian region into Siberia, colder conditions may descend on the region and gradually cool those SST's. This would cause snowfall, but I think mostly in the Norwegian mountains.

Thus far, above scandinavia, low pressure has been dominant with prevalant intermitant high pressure and occasional storminess. This seems to agree with the scenario framework outlined above. Colder conditions may descend on Scandinavia within the month. This could either mean more storms or more winter - I'm guessing: a little bit of both.


søndag, december 04, 2011


Today I noticed something for real, which I was probably only dimly aware of - if at all. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it's significant... I don't pretend to know.

The animation to the left is part of an MJO predictor toolbox provided by NOAA. I have long studied it with curiosity, since it is usefull for understanding the polar vortex behaviour.

Now I've noticed something, which truely intriques me. I will first provide you with still images from a Java Animation (Bottom screen), which displays the beginning and end images of an ECMWF model run from 4th of December to 8th of December:

Notice the rather steady low pressure over Scandinavia... Now study this model state on the 11th December:

This is called blocking or an Arctic breakout. It's still not NAO- for a host of reasons, which are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant however: Look to the date on the NOAA tool (Fig. 1); it ends on the 30th of November, but it clearly shows the blocking move in the North Atlantic. This, however, is 14 days prior to the actual event as weather on the ground - that is: if we trust the ECMWF model, which in this case I think I do. It will play out differently from current predictions, but the breakout will happen.

I'll be making more comparisons between NOAA's observations of the atmosphere and the model predictions in the future. I mean: this could be a powerfull predictive tool. DMI now locally predict -10 degrees C in Copenhagen around December 13th, but this was not in the cards 48 hours ago. It will possibly turn out to be overestimation by 2 - 3 degrees C. That would be typical of this model: first it underestimates (24 hours ago), and then it overestimates, accuracy is never achieved beyond 72 hours. By the same token precipitation estimates can only be described as weird.

Last year pretty much the same cirkulation (Eastern Siberia & North America heating up) resulted in some 30 cm of snow and -9 degrees for christmas, which is a very rare event here. If this keeps happening - it hasn't been a regular phenomena for 20 years, now - I'll take it as a sign of a cooling North Atlantic in response to the negativ PDO.


mandag, november 07, 2011

State of climate - an update

It's been some time since I wrote my piece on the state of climate and I've hopefully grown wiser ever since. I would like to share some simple observations first.

In the state of climate article I showed you this sketch from a National Geographic article from the mid 70's (I don't trust the modern products all too much, so it's nice with some counterbalance from a time, when people still had respect for 'objective' science).

I've now superimposed my graph of solar cycle length on that sketch (That would be the red line). And you may notice that they seem somewhat in tune. Now have a look at this graph:

If you click on the images you'll get an enlargement. Please note the dates of polynomic intersection between the AMO (North Atlantic) and the PDO (North Pasific). I get 1934, 1968 and 1998. I also believe, that if the data had reached further back in time you would have been able to locate an intersection around 1900-1910. 

There's some history to this: The Titanic sunk by ice berg 1915, 1934 warmest year in the US thermal record, 1976 marked the year of the great pacific climate shift (changing PDO), the great El Nino of that previous year made 1998 the hottest year on the global record, and scared the easily scared alarmists out of their wits. Compare with the modern global temperature scare product (on the left) and viola, how could anybody miss these striking 'coincidences'. Well the answer is: it takes an enormous amount of bias.  Compare the steep climb of late thermometer record with the satellites gentle hump:

Check also the previously mentioned years of AMO/PDO intersections with some Arctic history: 

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says - “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today. - New York Times, May 30, 1937

“The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages.” - New York Times, July 18, 1970  

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer (2008), report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker. - National Geographic News, June 20, 2008 

Of course the North Pole is not melting catastrofically and it is now reported, that sea ice has been refreezing at 40% the average rate (Sat history rate that is) during  this October.

Idealised sketch showing typical areas of low pressure 
thermal expansion, as well as high pressure migration routes 
out of the arctic.

As the pole heats up due to the warmer waters arriving in the region (forced by solar insolation in the tropics and possibly modulated by cloud and galactic cosmic rays), convective expansion pushes cold airmasses to the south over the continents (colder winters warmer summers in the interior). Eventually the cooler drier northern airmasses reaches tropical waters as they move south east where they fascilitate an enhanced Hadley circulation and upwelling regime. The northern warming cools the southern regions. As the south gets colder so, eventualy, do the hot waters which are pushed to the poles at the western plate boundaries. Eventually the north cools. Possibly solar forcing and magnetic fields (both the Suns and the Earths) modulate the polar atmosphere in various ways: cloud, moisture, temps.

The water temperature in the four regions marked in red  determines the level of thermal expansion around the region. In combination with the state of the polar cells pressure/temperature this determines where Arctic breakouts happen (blue arrows) and how intense the events. The PDO and AMO patterns are characteristics of this combined ocean/atmosphere behaviour and is actually an expression of a comprehensive northern hemosphere climate state which modulates the route of the northern jet stream. It defines the polar vortex and the meandering of high pressure systems. As this system feeds back on itself it oscillates between the phases shown in figure 2. The keen observer may notice, that the AMO seems to warm and cool with the cycles of the sun. While the PDO seems to respond to the AMO. And the PDO seems to 'regulate' global temperature. So there's a delay of about 15 years from the warming AMO until the Pasific starts cooling 'way down', which in turn starts cooling the AMO. The 'global' cooling is setting in right about now.

The danish meterological institute has a Java animation (Bottom of the page) simulating atmospheric circulation for the next week. Running this regularly, you can study the high pressure migration, and  the thermal expansion (low pressure) areas and the interaction between them. 
As the North Atlantic atmosperic thermal expansion becomes stronger than the Pasific thermal expansion cold air is pushed between them and the Atlantic wins: the tropical Pasific cools because cooler drier anticyclones enhances Hadley circulation and cold water upwelling. This drives hot water masses north (and south) at the west Pasific plate boundaries: the North Pasific warms. Eventualy the North Pasific will start pushing cold air masses into the North Atlantic creating blocking and cooling. The two oceans move in phase. During the next 20 years a warming North Pasific will graduately cool the North Atlantic.

Obviously this is a highly idealised schematic: a multitude of parameters most of them probably unknown modulate the highly complex climate system. Nothing is for sure!

Ocean temperature anomalies presented by NOAA as of October 26, 2011. 
Showing a cold PDO and a positive NAO.

As I see it, we seem to be in a somewhat simular situation as around World War II, where Hitlers armies perished in Russia due to extremely cold winters, and Scandinavia was hit by severe ice winters. While at the same time the Arctic was melting.

When we look at solar cycle length, it would seem that the recent warming in the 90's was somewhat stronger than the warming in the 30's. However, the present solar cycle lengths should provide a strong cooling effect... all in all we will probably be somewhere near 70's temperatures in roughly 25 years - somewhere around 2035. A cycle length of 60 years. By then we should have a good grasp on what the real effect of co2 looks like.

Oh I should mention, the colder, drier polar airmasses moving on the tropics should generate a lot of downpour. This would spell true in the North as well, as the thermal expansion areas (d)rain away. All this work will remove heat from the oceans, cool the planet and grow the glaciers by a small amount.