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.
” Richard111 (22:18:47) :
The oceans are a “cold” store, not a “heat” store. ”
This is a typical misunderstanding.
The oceans contain massive amounts of heat and without them the Earth would be a very cold place.
Don’t confuse temperature with heat. temperature is only directly related to heat in any given medium, change the specific heat capacity and 2 objects at the same temperature can contain totally different amounts of heat.
DaveE.
Should Obama be asked why Hansen is not subject to the Hatch Act as every other government employee?
The more scientific challenges to Global Warming, the better. I don’t know if I can bring myself to address the TOTUS (Teleprompter of….), but because doing so is recommended by respected commenters of WUWT, I will do my best.
Do WUWT readers have a recommendation for an ENSO guide as to warm-wet and warm-dry (drought) and cold-wet and cold-dry (drought) — and why? What are the causes of each?. It seems that different parts of countries and/or continents vary according to El Nino and La Nina. For example, California, at least the southern and central part, seems to love drought when La Nina visits — and we have some spectacular ones. I think readers have informed us that different parts of Australia receive quite different wet-and-dry; the same with South America. Perhaps there is some reference work/scientific text that sorts this out?
Once again, we find the conventional, accepted answer to be unsupported by the evidence. Global warming doesn’t cause stronger el Ninos, el Ninos cause global warming!
New Sun-Watching Instrument to Monitor Sunlight Fluctuations
http://www.physorg.com/news157041575.html
While total solar irradiance changes by 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts, scientists have discovered. Research shows such variations in the Sun’s emissions can affect the ozone layer and the way energy moves both vertically and horizontally through the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, they just couldn’t stay away from statements like this…
After examining the historical TSI database, some scientists have suggested that solar irradiance could account for as much as a quarter of recent global warming. But without a continuous and reliable TSI record, Kopp and Lean point out, there will always be room for skeptics to blame global warming entirely on the sun, even when most evidence suggests human activities are the key influence on modern climate changes.
All this shows is that past El Nino events have been as strong as those experienced now. What it doesn’t disprove is global warming being responsible for the increased FREQUENCY of very strong El Nino and La Nina effects.
I’m still surprised that there are people who don’t believe the Earth’s climate is changing faster than it should by natural variation. Anthopogenic global warming has a mountain of strong evidence. Yes, the planet does have natural cycles and variations in climate but if actions we take increase the frequency of those cycles we are putting more pressure on ourselves and animal life to adapt to those changes in a shorter timescales. The people who will be most affected are those living in areas where natural climate variation is most altered. Like Australia suffering droughts and fires, like the fishing industry in South America, increased hurricane strength, flooding in Europe and India etc. Increased frequency of extreme weather phenomena are a symptom of anthropogenic global warming.
OT.
Just what is going on in the Arctic? It seems we have greater ice extent now, at the end of March, than we did in early February.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
If it keeps up extent will crack the 1979-2000 average sometime in April.
vibenna: You wrote, “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?”
You’re assuming that PDO drives ENSO and not vice versa. In “ENSO-Forced Variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation”, Newman et al state in the conclusions, “The PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales.” Refer to:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
I discussed the similarities between the raw PDO and NINO3.4 SST anomaly data here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicken-or-egg-pdo-or-enso.html
And the Mann et al reconstruction of NINO3 SST anomalies were found to have underlying long-term (~20 to ~40 year) oscillations. Jones et al smoothed the Mann NINO3 data with a 30-year Gaussian-weighted filter to bring out those low-frequency cycles. I posted about it a couple of weeks ago:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html
Note that the smoothed NINO3 SST anomalies were higher in years past.
It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people are about the logarithmic extinction effects of the ability of CO2 to cause additional warming. It also never ceases to amaze me how people don’t understand system equilibria and how the positive water vapor “feedbacks” upon which all of the apocalyptic AGW predictions depend simply can’t happen. And none of this even touches on changes in albedo caused by increased cloudiness if water vapor increases (which, by the way, is NOT happening–atmospheric water vapor is decreasing).
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain….
The 1917 El Nino was intense not the 1918.
See: http://www.cipca.org.pe/cipca/nino/nino/feni%F1o.htm
Computer models are just pre-programmed x-box or nintendo games, in the case of forecasting climate and also in this case.
In the following paper 1917 and 1918 El Nino are classified as Normal:
http://www.ifeanet.org/publicaciones/boletines/16(1-2)/1.pdf
Sarah wrote:
I’m still surprised that there are people who don’t believe the Earth’s climate is changing faster than it should by natural variation.
Earth’s climate is changing faster than than it should by natural variation. Really? What is the maximum (fastest) rate of change that’s within natural variation? Please provide citations to support your claims.
How about 10 years? The Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago “began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.”
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046
So, natural variation allows a change of 5°C within 10 years. What do the scenarios of the IPCC project? Warming of 0.2°C per decade. Right, that’s “faster than it should by natural variation.” Excuse me while I laugh.
I have just found an peculiar paper about El Nino:
ABSTRACT
“The following is a theorical yet exploratory and descriptive study, on which it is sustained that the Sun’s
additional energy provided from the Earth’s core produces «El Niño» phenomenon trough energetic decompression
through the weakest zones or Subduction zones of the Pacific Ocean’s, Ring of Fire. That, depends on: The
Earth’s interior dynamic, plate tectonics, energetic antipodes and the Earth’s rotation.
The Pacific Ocean, surrounded by the Ring of Fire, both in the East and West, has «Subduction zones» –deep
failures– where the Earth’s inner energy escapes alternatively; giving place to «El Niño» Phenomenon (on the
Pacific East) and «La Niña» Phenomenon (on the Pacific West) –or viceversa.
When the Earth’s inner energy is «explosive», it escapes through both Ring of Fire’s extremes, and also by
some other failures. Subsequently catastrophic Niño Phenomena occur, according to the amount of gas, ash
and sulfur eliminated by the Continental or submarine volcanos of the previous mentioned extremes.
The proposal sustains that the difference of pressions from the Pacific East and West, discovered by Walker
(1920), occurs due to an alternate decompression on the opposite extremes of the Ring of Fire; the oscillation
among «El Nino» or «La Nina» phenomena –from extreme hots to the coldest ones (or viceversa)–occur for
the decompression associated to the energetic antipodes and the Earth’s rotation; likewise, the presence or
absence of trade winds and oceanic warm and cold currents are explained by the processes aforementioned.
Keywords: Compression, Decompression, Tectonic, Antipode, Plate, Subduction, Vulcanism.”
http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/BibVirtualData/publicaciones/geologia/vol8_n16/a02.pdf
Bill Marsh (06:20:57) :
OT.
“Just what is going on in the Arctic? It seems we have greater ice extent now, at the end of March, than we did in early February.” Be very aware that whenever this had happened in the past there is a quick “adjustment” to bring it back into line…LOL just be on the watchout for this soon…
Wish Anthony + Sete MC would write a concerted short concise question ect for Obama making him aware of serious scientific data which shows AGW aint happening…
anna v (20:54:04) said :
Though our real hope is the deus ex machina of the PDO etc.
(a) Brilliant. I love hanging with a literate crowd; don’t see many AGWers citing the devices of ancient Greek Theatre.
(b) Apparently Apollo, who presumably is in charge of manipulating the ropes-and-pulleys which regulate the sun, has been taking a lengthy snooze (at least in human terms; likely just a quick nap in Olympian terms).
Spotless again, with flux <70. See: http://solarcycle24.com/
OTOH knowing these Olympians (who behaved in ways uncannily similar to modern politicians-cough-Spitzer-cough-WillieClinton-cough-), Apollo (incidentally, the God of Single Men) may alternately be off chasing skirt.
Knowing Apollo’s taste for mortal women, and his propensity for mucking things up on Earth, his talent for disguise, and the Olympians delicious sense of irony, the prominent AGWers might want to keep a weather eye open.
Al, wasn’t that pizza delivery guy unusually tall and handsome?
He seemed positively radiant.
The above theory about el Nino would correlate well with barycentric theories.
html version:
http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-08882005000200002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es
Adolfo. Very interesting post. Something to throw into the mix. As has been pointed out so often, climate/weather is very complex. Modeling a chaotic event seems unlikely. Frank
Sarah (06:05:50) :
Yes, and had much the same results.
There is no evidence of an increase in the frequency of strong El Nino events.
Oh..Really? What is the natural variation of the earths climate and how fast should it change?
Show me the mountain.
And if we are not having any effect on the climate, then we have been wasting our time and resources on a hoax.
Natural climate variation effects all of us. You assume that they have been altered by us.
It has been for as long as man first inhabited that dry and parched land. If you live in Queensland or Tasmania I’m they sure they can arrange a man made catastrophe for you.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have known about this effect for many years. There is no evidence that the events are increasing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/
Read it and weep.
file this under “unintended consequences”….LOL
Climate scientists admit defeat in ocean experiment
http://www.terradaily.com/2007/090324110132.ei7bjwye.html
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.
Good for my hypothesis, that the Earth’s irregular motion around the ba…nned-word-ending-with-center is an important ENSO driver. http://virakkraft.com/BC-Perh-SST.ppt
From the same source (google translation):
“The Meganiños 1925 and 1997-1998 were caused by submarine volcanic sulfur, as from 1993 to 1998 have been activated many undersea volcanoes, whose surface manifestations go unnoticed as the volcano Cerro Azul and Fernandina in the Galápagos (1997-1998), forcing some species of turtles move to safer places, too, Axial Volcano on the islands of Juan de Fuca, at Guagua Pichincha volcano (Ecuador), Popocatepelt (Mexico), White Island volcano (New Zealand) and Nyamuragina ( Congo) went unnoticed.”
Sarah (06:05:50) :
Increased frequency of extreme weather phenomena are a symptom of anthropogenic global warming.
This is conjecture, it hasn’t been proven.
Sarah wrote:
I’m still surprised that there are people who don’t believe the Earth’s climate is changing faster than it should by natural variation.
I’m surprised there aren’t more. If nothing else, the last 8 years of increasing CO2 with flat or declining world temperature should give anyone pause.
The notion that somehow climate warming is on hold due to “other unforeseeable factors” but that CO2 will become the dominant driver in the future is absurd.
If CO2 isn’t the dominant factor now what is and why wouldn’t it be in 30 years? If CO2 is the dominant factor why isn’t global temperature increasing?
Answer those questions to the satisfaction of those who frequent this blog and you will likely have some converts.
Dear Sarah: About your concern about fishing industries in south america: As you may know we are currently in La Nina, so there is no problem right now in local fishing industry. You will have to wait, it is my guess, until 2017 at least to see el Nino back.
“”” Steven Hill (04:37:08) :
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. “””
Well unfortunately Steven, the politics is being driven by far more money than the science is; and since politics drives the science funding; most research dollars are going into shoring up the failed MMGWCC thesis; rather than doing the basic experiments that might support the real climate control mechanisms.
You would think, that with all of the satellites that have been put into space for scientific research purposes; that you would be able to google up a map of the EM radiation emission from the earth’s atmosphere, covering say the entire spectral range from about 0.1 micron to about 100 microns wavelength; so we could see what the earth IS actually radiating out into space, and how it varies over the globe and over the seasons or other time scales.
In stead of trying to compouter model atmospheric emissions; why not just leasure them from a satellite.
Well if you find this missing map; would you post a link to it here.
Of course such data would not likely support the current mantra so I doubt that anyone has actually obtained grant dollars to make such measurements.