From Scientific American via Reuters
By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Research showing an El Nino event in 1918 was far stronger than previously thought is challenging the notion climate change is making El Nino episodes more intense, a U.S. scientist said on Tuesday.
El Nino causes global climate chaos such as droughts and floods. The events of 1982/83 and 1997/98 were the strongest of the 20th Century, causing loss of life and economic havoc through lost crops and damage to infrastructure.
But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation.
The outcome of the research was valuable for several reasons, Giese told Reuters from Perth in Western Australia.
“It questions the notion that El Ninos have been getting stronger because of global warming,” he said ahead of a presentation of his team’s research at a major climate change conference in Perth.
The 1918 event also co-incided with one of India’s worst droughts of the 20th century.
“We know that El Ninos and drought in India are often related to each other,” he said.
El Nino is an abnormal warming of the surface waters in the eastern Pacific off South America that causes the normally rainy weather in the western Pacific to shift further to the east.
This causes drought in parts of Australia, Southeast Asia and India as well as flooding in Chile and Peru, colder and wetter winters in the southern United States and fewer Atlantic hurricanes.
The droughts in Australia of 1982-83 and 1997-98 rank among the worst in the nation’s modern history. Drought also occurred in eastern Australia from 1918-20.
Giese said his team ran a complex ocean computer model that, for the first time, used the results of a separate atmospheric model produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The result was a simulation of ocean temperatures, currents and other measures from 1908 to 1958.
For 1918, the simulation produced a strong abnormal surface warming in the central Pacific and weaker warming nearer the South American coast.
There were very few measurements of the tropical Pacific during 1918, the last year of World War One, and ship-based measurements along the South American coast suggested only a weak El Nino.
This, Giese said, reinforced the point that there is limited data about El Ninos prior to the 1950s and that computer models were one way to get a clearer picture of the past.
“We cannot rely on what El Nino looks like today to try to understand what El Nino patterns looked like in the past.”
“It makes it a challenge to talk about El Nino and global warming because we simply don’t have a detailed record,” he added.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation.”
Not sure if I did that right, oh well. What’s the deal with the semantics here?
The place is 4.5 billion years old. It has a molten core. It has gone from barren rock to habitable by terrestrial life forms for the last 500 million years (your number may differ). Plate tectonics keeps moving the land forms. Ice Ages come and go. Species come and go. There are mass extinctions. Volcanoes erupt. Exotic objects impact the surface and leave large craters. It somewhat regularly flips its magnetic polarity. Sometimes it is warmer and sometimes it is colder. I have found Douglas fir cones in the drill mud at Prudhoe Bay from somewhere in the upper 1,200′ of soil.
Why would anyone expect stasis? Evolution is accepted by everyone but the climate types. The entire earth history says it will change, but does not say any given species will like the change. Adaptation is considered a key factor in evolution, but apparently no longer functions.
It is what it is. We an try to understand and explain it, but it is what it is.
sorry to bringing this from the Hansen thread, but I think it is important to draw attention to it:
OT IMPORTANT
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25239707-23109,00.html
Obama invites online questions
Reuters
US President Barack Obama today encouraged Americans to submit their questions about the economy over the internet and said he will answer some of them live on the White House website on Friday.
Why is this coming from australia?
Since popularity of questions is the order, how about the best science blog US participants forming a good question on the relevance of CO2 to climate and economy?
And on topic: The more scientists reveal the extent of uncertainty in climate data and conclusions, the better chance to stop the CO2 bandwagon. Though our real hope is the deus ex machina of the PDO etc.
Excellent article. Great find that one is. Well, that strikes a blow FOR computer models, since the research does not back up the AGW automatically. As long as the data is publicly available for scrutiny and the simulations can afterwards be duplicated by others to get the same result on the 1918 El Nino, then with that caveat I’d say we have a winner. Plus, this ends the argument that computer modeling is the be-all and end-all of the global warming hypothesis; that computer models naturally and accurately back up AGW-related assertions about the climate, past and present. Very nice!
“It is what it is. We an try to understand and explain it, but it is what it is.”
“Adaptation is considered a key factor in evolution, but apparently no longer functions.”
A handshake for you if we ever cross paths. That is exactly how I am looking at this whole ordeal. We are focusing on carbon, and ignoring the adaptation alternative, which does not bode well for a society that largely is dependent on others bringing food to market. Honestly, what percent of the world right now do you think knows how to farm?
This is link to an abstract suggesting a rapid mixing of CO2 between the hemispheres and has a connection with El Nino. I do not know if it has had any peer review but if true then it is another nail in the coffin for AGM.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00009
anna v. is right. We should be part of the process. Here is the president’s web page to get started: click
Ask questions! Like: why spend $Trillions on CO2 mitigation when the planet is cooling, and CO2 is a non-harmful, beneficial plant food?
And: Why are you allowing James Hansen to hijack science by accepting outside advocacy funding?
And… well, I’m sure you can think of plenty of other questions.
There was a severe drought and famine in India and China in 1876-1878. This is reported anecdotally in the book El Nino: Unlocking the Secrets of the Master Weather-Maker, by J. Madeleine Nash, (2002) Warner Books. This begins on page 36 as Nash introduces the players who first investigated the Southern Oscillation, Blanford and Walker. One might guess from this that the 1918 event reported on by Ben Giese is not the only event worthy of attention as regards, “those that came before AGW.”
Giese should ask for more funding.
How about, “Since NASA’s Aqua satellite has falsified CO2 positive feedback theory, why spend $Trillions . . . (etc.)”
As for modeling, it all depends on the model.
They are going about it all wrong. By analogy, they are trying to model the Russian front in WWII using Sniper rules. They’ll never do that. But one can do it quite reasonably using an army-level mechanic.
They should be looking at it top-down, not bottom up. A typical mistake of modelers (and wargame designers).
Terry J (20:50:27) : “Evolution is accepted by everyone . . . “
Don’t you wish? This week the Texas School Board is set to vote on a curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution. The chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy, believes God created Earth 10,000 years ago.
Article in the Wall Street Journal, p. A5, Monday 3/23/2009.
“It is what it is. We an try to understand and explain it, but it is what it is.”
Good one Terry. I’m just along for the ride too.
The oceans are a “cold” store, not a “heat” store. The warmest level of the oceans is always on top radiating to space and the atmosphere 24/7. Warming from insolation is only a few hours a day, much less than 12, and then only along a relatively narrow band.. When cold water comes to the surface the effect on the atmosphere is immediate, through conduction, convection and radiation. Normal atmospheric movement will spread the effects far and wide.
Just my opinion.
For some refreshing ideas on ENSO, see p.5-6 in:
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/19292/01/ex19.pdf
And if you are up for something a little more complicated – but along the same refreshing line of thinking:
http://forum.decvar.org/presentations/ENSO_WORKSHOP/documents/presentations/posters/Sonechkin-poster.pdf
More generally, keep an eye on NS Sidorenkov, DM Sonechkin, & LB Klyashtorin.
Australia also had a major drought from 1918 – 1920
The Federation drought in Australia (pre 1901 lasting for some 10-12 years) saw many people leaving the land certain that it would never rain again. It wasn’t global warming then and it is not now, it’s just the natural cycle of life on this beautiful planet.
Federation Drought Link http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/drought1.htm
I believe as a skeptic, that when computer models conflict with the data we have, then it’s probably the model that is wrong.
With that in mind, then what data do we have?
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Graph here:-
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/GlobalSST-ALL.jpg
1918-1920 was probably La Nina and not El Nino.
Here’s some new research on the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and how it effects the rainfall and even bushfires in Australia. They’re still blaming changes to the IOD on ‘climate change’ though thanks to models.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/indian-ocean-may-hold-key-for-bushfire-predictions/11541
Global warming is making El Ninos more severe? Sez who? Can’t variations in the severity of El Ninos be more simply explained by the PDO?
And as for adaption … yes, the human species will adapt. It doesn’t mean you, or your family, or your ethnic group, or your country will successfully adapt. I liken the effects of global warming to the 1066 invasion of Britain. Britain adapted, but you wouldn’t have wanted to have been an Anglo-Saxon at that time.
My arguments are here, third heading down. (First I dispose of the mythical threat of runaway warming, second I dispose of being saved by a cooling event, third I address adaptation.) Rebuttals welcome.
Just looking at the Hadley Centre NINO3.4 SST anomaly data will show that El Nino events are not getting more intense.
Based on the HADSST2 data, the 1887/88/89 El Nino (2-year El Nino) peaked at just over 4 deg C, and the 1918/19 El Nino, the basis for the article, topped out at 3.6 deg C, where the 1997/98 El Nino had a maximum NINO3.4 SST anomaly of just over 3 deg C.
http://s5.tinypic.com/6j3u5i.jpg
The Hadley Centre’s SST data (HADISST) with a higher resolution rearranges the large events in early years and trims some of the excess from those significant El Nino events. Based on the HADISST data, the 1887/88/89 El Nino had a peak SST anomaly essentially equal to the 1997/98 El Nino, but the 1887/88/89 El Nino lasted through two winters. The 1888/89 El Nino is larger than the 1972/73 El Nino. The 1918/19 El Nino, however, was downscaled.
http://s5.tinypic.com/2con29d.jpg
In a post called “A Different Way to Look At Nino3.4 Data”…
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/different-way-to-look-at-nino34-data.html
…I smoothed NINO3.4 SST anomaly data with a 2-year (25-month) filter to emphasize multiyear El Nino events. I discussed the logic for it in that post. When the 2-year smoothing is applied, the 1887/88/89 El Nino remains the largest in the HADSST2 data, and note effect on the THREE successive (moderate) El Nino events in 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42. When smoothed with a 2-year filter, those El Nino events in the early 1940s become more significant than the 1997/98 El Nino.
http://s5.tinypic.com/2ijgtgh.jpg
The same thing holds true for the HADISST anomaly data.
http://s5.tinypic.com/2e67oxv.jpg
Also the thought the global warming intensifies El Ninos may be the wrong way to look at it. You can reproduce most of the global temperature anomaly curve with the first derivative of scaled NINO3.4 SST anomaly data. Then you add noise from volcanic eruptions, solar and ENSO and it reproduces global temperature better than most GCMs. So maybe it’s the fact that the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events vary that causes the global warming. I illustrated that in my post “Reproducing Global Temperature With Natural Forcings”.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html
This is where computer modeling can do the most good. Models aren’t very good at projecting into the future but they are good at filling in gaps in our knowledge. When you know something about the conditions at beginning and the end, and maybe even some things about the middle you can model to fill in the missing knowledge. You can “fit” your data to the knowns and calculate the unknowns with a high degree of confidence. The models work because they are bounded by known quantities and the deltas can be constrained. Further, you can apply the same model to situations in which more was known, perhaps the whole scenario, and see if it holds up. When projecting into the future the unknowns quickly outweigh the knowns and the deltas become nothing more than guess work.
An anecdotal note; a severe drought was experienced in the upper Midwest during the summer/fall of 1918. A large forest fire in northern Minnesota killed some 2000 people and burned several towns to the ground. The fire was attributed to natural causes due to the dry conditions. Change is a constant.
The climate researchers are starting to rediscover the ocean cycles again after relying too much on the global circulation / global warming models over the last 20 years.
Effectively, the models even excluded these effects since ocean cycles were not thought of as “external forcing”.
But after several years of cooling, they had to start taking this into account again. GISS even appends the Nino 3.4 index to one of their charts now.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif
What they will find out, however, if they take this a little farther is that their GHG warming estimates are way off.
The decline in the ENSO and the AMO and the souther ocean from 1946 to 1976 was accounted for in the models through Aerosols. The uptick in the ENSO and the AMO from 1977 to 1998 (2006) was interpreted in the models as the GHG signal. So they got both of these external forcings off by half through not properly taking into account the internal forcing of ocean cycles.
I am certian now that AGW is about redistribution of wealth and a tax opportunity for Governments and nothing else. It’s good that this site and others are pointing out all of problems that Hansen and Gore cannot continue to ignore.
keep it going, the truth will win in the end.