Response to Comment on "The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation without a role for ocean circulation"

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a climate pattern that affects weather and climate over decades. Prior research has shown that the AMO can be influenced by atmospheric variability. However, recent work by Zhang et al suggests ocean dynamics are central to the AMO. This paper addresses a gap in the field by examining whether ocean circulation is essential to the AMO. No prior work had resolved the extent to which ocean dynamics are necessary for the AMO. That uncertainty drove this study. The authors aim to clarify whether ocean dynamics are central to the AMO or if atmospheric forcing alone can explain it. This distinction is important for climate modeling and prediction. Understanding the AMO’s drivers helps improve climate projections. The AMO’s role in regional climate impacts remains a key area of interest.

The purpose of this study is to challenge the claim that ocean dynamics are central to the AMO. The authors aim to show that Zhang et al’s diagnostics cannot reveal the causes of the AMO. Their goal is to reaffirm that the AMO can be understood as an upper-ocean thermal response to atmospheric forcing. This study focuses on clarifying the role of ocean circulation in the AMO. The authors argue that minimal ocean influence is sufficient to explain the AMO. They aim to provide evidence that ocean dynamics are not essential to the AMO. This work addresses a specific problem in climate science: the interpretation of model diagnostics. The authors seek to correct a misinterpretation of mixed-layer energy budgets in models.

The authors analyze the mixed-layer energy budget in climate models. They use diagnostics to assess the role of ocean dynamics in the AMO. The study compares Zhang et al’s diagnostics with alternative interpretations. The authors examine whether ocean circulation is necessary for the AMO. They use minimal ocean influence to explain the AMO in models. The study evaluates the thermal response of the upper ocean to atmospheric forcing. The authors test whether stochastic atmospheric forcing can account for the AMO. They use a combination of model analysis and theoretical reasoning to reach their conclusions.

The authors find that Zhang et al’s diagnostics cannot reveal the causes of the AMO. Their results show that the AMO can be explained with minimal ocean influence. The study finds that the AMO in models is primarily a thermal response to atmospheric forcing. The authors confirm that ocean dynamics are not central to the AMO. They find that stochastic atmospheric forcing is sufficient to explain the AMO. The study shows that the AMO is not driven by ocean circulation. The authors find that the AMO can be understood as an upper-ocean response. Their results reaffirm that ocean dynamics are not essential to the AMO.

The authors conclude that Zhang et al’s diagnostics cannot reveal the causes of the AMO. They reaffirm that the AMO in models can be understood as an upper-ocean thermal response. The study concludes that ocean dynamics are not central to the AMO. The authors find that minimal ocean influence is sufficient to explain the AMO. They conclude that stochastic atmospheric forcing is the primary driver of the AMO. The study concludes that ocean circulation is not essential to the AMO. The authors find that the AMO is primarily a response to atmospheric variability. Their conclusions support the view that the AMO is not driven by ocean dynamics.