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.
Pearland Aggie (07:58:19) :
“Other geo-engineering ideas include sowing sulphur particles in the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation and erecting mirrors in orbit that would deflect sunrays and thus slightly cool the planet.”
These ideas concern me. We are going to deliberately tinker with the climate? If it doesn’t have immediate effects, will we then try to do more? How cold are we trying to make it? What is the plan if this backfires? This is pure madness. If we cause climate to abruptly shift colder, unnaturally, what are the consequences? There is a certain danger to this that I don;t think that the ‘geo-engineers’ are taking into account.
Ohioholic (10:14:36) :
Oh, I think the consequences of abrupt worldwide cooling are much more severe than modest global warming. We have technologies to adapt to warmer climates, but it is much more difficult to cope with the cold.
I, too, worry about these ideas, especially when they are based on, to be charitable, unsettled science.
hareynolds (07:23:58) :
is it me, or is the solar flux on a slight downward trend as of late?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/solar.gif
Good God!
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/georank.html
There are at least ten ideas involving artificially cooling the climate. Are they going to actually try all of these?!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
The White House is inviting you to post your questions on the economy and vote on submissions from others. The President will answer some of the most popular in an online town hall on Thursday.
Note to US people: Not much time left to send in questions
We can file the following observation under the heading “Unintended Consquences of Weather/Climate Tinkering.” I lived for five years in Japan and was frequently surprised at the energy and enthusiasm that Japanese scientists would bring to projects they were involved in. Fukuoka University was nearby where I was living and they received a grant from the Japanese government to conduct some tests to determine critical slope angles, rainfall density, soil mechanics and such things associated with mud slides.
In a fit of enthusiasm they set out to build a fully instrumented test range where they could create carefully studied mini-mudslides. This involved lots of tiltmeters, remotely controlled highspeed cameras, microseismographs, and a big-ass pump (technical term) for pumping water from a lake uphill to soak pre-selected slopes so they could control for simulated rainfall. Well to compress the story somewhat, using the best modeling tools available at the time they carefully calculated the slope angle/soil weight/estimated liquification factor/rainfall rate and other details and proceeded to create an artificial mudslide. They anticipated it would take four days of pumping to get it wet enough to slide.
Unfortunately, the parameters and rules loaded into the computer model must have been slightly unsuitable because about 58% through the calculated pumping program the ground began slipping and rapidly became a full-blown mudslide. In the ensuing event four scientists died and most of their equipment was destroyed. On the slightly positive side the high speed cameras and tiltmeters worked perfectly and provided highly interesting video of the entire event complete with fully documented data readings.
Sigh.
Ohioholic (11:47:28) :
I find it interesting that the “cooling potential” of the techniques listed are in the 0-4 W/sq. m range, presumably because that amount of change in flux can cool the planet. However, TSI changes from solar max to solar min are around in the 2-3 W/sq. m range and yet those, somehow, can’t cause the planet to warm. Very strange indeed!
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/1-320851main_tsi2_full.jpg
‘There is no evidence of an increase in the frequency of strong El Nino events.’
Of the last 6 strongest El Nino events, the three strongest are the most recent ones.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/bptlch.php
About the hurricanes
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/
‘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.’
You would think the funding would be available for this too. It takes years to develop and put a satellite into orbit and the last one crashed due to a faulty delivery system.
‘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.’
Ice extent and ice area are two different things. Broken ice spread out with water in between is still measured as extent. Ice area is the actual area of ice without the water – like the difference between swiss cheese and a solid lump.
Arctic ice is becoming thinner and with each season more salty as the all of the salt isn’t expelled before the melting starts all over again. Therefore it breaks up more easily and takes longer to form the following year.
‘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.’
Yes I am aware. While the fishing is currently good in S. America, Australia has experienced the worst drought and fires on record.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7877178.stm
‘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.”’
Excellent case study! Yes these events do occur in nature and this one in particular was triggered by massive in puts of fresh water into the North Atlantic, some argue an El Nino event also assisted.
Right now the Artic ice sheet is being melted from above and below from changes warm water currents in the pacific. This is increasing the amount of freshwater being dumped into the north Altantic leading to colder wetter conditions here. Great for snowboarding in the Alps, but some serious hard ship for all those people who got flooded last summer.
If predictions are correct and all ice melts in 2013 then it is possible we could see a similar return of the cooling experienced during the Younger Dryas. Hopefully it won’t happen on quite the same extent as there are significantly more people likely to be affected in Europe than back then.
‘Show me the mountain.’
We showed it to the IPCC, weren’t you there?
‘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.’
Look at a longer term record. This helps to cancel out the interdecadal noise caused by short term climate alterations.
‘These ideas concern me. We are going to deliberately tinker with the climate?’
Yes it concerns me too. As there is no model that can fully predict climate change in any direction the prudent course of action is to limit anthropogenic interference.
‘This is conjecture, it hasn’t been proven.’
It’s a theory actually, like black holes and evolution. None have been proven but all have significant evidence.
‘Read it and weep.’
If you can’t debate politely then don’t debate at all.
Bob – very interesting thanks. If I read you right you are saying that PDO lags ENSO by a few months, and is highly correlated.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that ENSO causes PDO. Much more likely that they are both manifestations of the same underlying phenomena. Or do you propose that PDO is the manifestation of ENSO feedback effects?
‘file this under “unintended consequences”….LOL’
Heck, even I’ll admit the science behind this was iffy. Every oceanographer worth their salt knows what eats phytoplankton. Perhaps they should have studied an upwelling zone first…
George,
Here is some: http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?group=55
‘Here is some: http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?group=55‘
Nice one!
Sarah:
It is perfectly OK, with la Nina around. Weather changes all the time, but not because the air is hot with CO2. You already know, those glasses (CO2 molecules, 0.0385% of the air) of your dynamic greenhouse, just go up to release their heat and then come back (because of its molecular weight)…and please remember, air volumetric heat capacity is 3227 times less than air.
Typo!:It should be read “less than water”
Bob Tisdale (03:28:53)
The adjusted Hadley Centre NINO3.4 SST anomaly data you provided here
http://s5.tinypic.com/2con29d.jpg
still has the 1878 event larger than any of the others. It has about the same peak as 1998 but a longer time span (wider base, although not above 0.5). It has three follow-on peaks with each higher than the former. This seems to be somewhat similar to the sloshing back-and-forth you have written about. It continues to show up as a major event on the other charts you provide. The eruption of Karkatau, (Aug., 26, 1883, a VEI 6) shows up on your figure:
http://i41.tinypic.com/2yz0nec.jpg
So the question is: Would the eruption of Karakatau have decreased the peaks that follow 1878? Then by 1887 we have another high NINO3.4 SST anomaly. It seems that without Karkatau intervening the period between 1876 through 1890 might have been even more exceptional. See my initial note at (21:11:41), this post.
“It’s a theory actually, like black holes and evolution. None have been proven but all have significant evidence.”
Where is the theory?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080812160615.htm
“Yes it concerns me too. As there is no model that can fully predict climate change in any direction the prudent course of action is to limit anthropogenic interference.”
Why? The only way to eradicate your impact is to die, yet even then your body will still emit CO2. CO2 is also very nutritious for plants. Also, I can tell you are concerned about warming. Why is warming bad?
“The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today.” From: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
This roughly corresponds with the development of humanity’s first protostates (not to be confused with prostate :P). So why is warmer bad?
Sarah, you wrote, “What it doesn’t disprove is global warming being responsible for the increased FREQUENCY of very strong El Nino and La Nina effects.”
From the 1970s through the 1998, the number of large El Nino events was greater than during the period of 1945 through 1970. A few things to consider, though. The El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions occurred at the same time as the 1982/83 and the 1991/92 El Nino events. Since nature uses El Nino events to redistribute excess heat from the tropics to higher latitudes, those two El Nino events were, in effect, suppressed by the volcanoes. In other words, those El Nino events of 1982/83 and 1991/92 did not serve their natural function. They were non-Ninos. But the tropics still needed to unload the heat. To accommodate that, there were a few more El Nino events during that period to help distribute that extra heat toward the poles, where it can be radiated into space more efficiently.
Second thing to consider: As I agreed above, we’ve recently been through a period where the frequency and magnitude of El Nino events was greater than they were for the prior few decades. During that recent period, the frequency of El Nino events also exceeded the frequency and magnitude of La Nina events. But that’s only 50-60 years of comparison. What about longer terms?
There is an underlying, natural, low-frequency variability in ENSO data. Researchers (Jones et al) used a special filter (30-year Gaussian weighted filter) to extract those low-frequency cycles from the Mann et al NINO3 reconstruction data that covered the period of 1650 to 1980. The following graph shows the Mann NINO3 data in red.
http://s5.tinypic.com/20b26p0.jpg
Note how the recent spell would be lower in frequency and magnitude than in earlier centuries. There are links to all the datasets and the studies in my post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html
And let me end with…you wrote, “What it doesn’t disprove is global warming being responsible for the increased FREQUENCY of very strong El Nino and La Nina effects.”
Your statement is backwards. The higher frequency and magnitude of El Nino events led to global warming. Global temperatures lag ENSO events, so how could your statement be correct?
lgl (13:04:15) & George & Sarah
That is an interesting and visual site. I haven’t tried many of the options yet. If you haven’t tried the Google Earth presentation –DO! Google provides the land outlines.
Nice reference – THANKS! John
Bob Tisdale: “those El Nino events of 1982/83 and 1991/92 did not serve their natural function”
You tell me!, that 1983 el Nino was really big…to the extent that peruvian economy went default. 1991/92 its ok.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:12:01) Typos, as in plural
Those CO2 things are “gases”, not glasses, but, hey, whose counting?
Sarah, It is right to be cautious. If you step over the line and become a skeptic: Your friends and family will think you have gone batty. Your local Starbucks will only serve you cold coffee. Members of the PTA will warn the school kids about you.
But, to not make a choice is still a choice.
I suggest you spend a little time reading the “how not to measure temperature” posts – parts 84 & 85 are still listed at the top-right. Or go here: http://surfacestations.org/
Also read some papers – here are three:
Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change by Akasofu, here:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf by Steve McIntyre
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Climate.pdf
Cheers, John
If a computer model produces a result that conflicts with what was previously thought about the strength of the 1918 El Nino, why should we conclude that the previous information was wrong? Isn’t a conclusion that the computer model might be flawed at least as valid?
‘Your statement is backwards. The higher frequency and magnitude of El Nino events led to global warming. Global temperatures lag ENSO events, so how could your statement be correct?’
The artical doesn’t state this, you do. Therefore my statement is correct; The article doesn’t disprove that global warming affects the frequency of high magnitude El Nino events.
I’m not saying it prooves it either, just that it doesn’t disprove it which is what the artical is leaning towards. It only proves that strong events also happened in the past.
‘In other words, those El Nino events of 1982/83 and 1991/92 did not serve their natural function. They were non-Ninos. But the tropics still needed to unload the heat. To accommodate that, there were a few more El Nino events during that period to help distribute that extra heat toward the poles, where it can be radiated into space more efficiently.’
Given that ash from volcanic eruptions reflects heat back into space as well as insulating Earth it would be difficult to proove what the net effect was without satellite data. If there is proof you’re aware of please post a link.
‘Note how the recent spell would be lower in frequency and magnitude than in earlier centuries. There are links to all the datasets and the studies in my post here:’
Those graphs are interesting: From 1800 and thestart of the industrial revolution the El Nino peaks get bigger and last longer. From 1900 there is a significant departure to previous patterns of El Nino events. Lots of smaller peaks gradually increasing in strength over time rather than a clear regular pulse.
If you’re right in saying that El Ninos are triggered by a natural feedback which removes excess heat, then it does link quite nicely to the recent global warming patterns. With this data you would expect to see progressively stronger El Nino events as the natural feedback mechanisms try to cool the Earth. This transfers heat to the poles which then melt more frequently and severely as each successive years ice pack is weaker than the last. You would then expect La Nina events to be stronger and the NAO to be more pronounced leading to cooler and wetter Northern Europe climates. Isn’t that what we have been seeing?
However, no one has really prooved the mechanisms that cause El Ninos to begin.
From the work I do on water flows in Eastern Australia, I would have thought that while the drought in 1918 is worth looking at, it is the drought sequence of 1936-1945 that most closely matches the current 10 year drought sequence in Australia (which appears to be ending now). This drought was very severe, both in terms of lack of rainfall and duration, and occurred just before the modern “CO2 era”. Before that was the 1890’s drought. The timing of the 1890’s, 1936-1945, and 1996-2007/8 droughts appear to aliigh with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and certainly appear to represent a pattern. Shorter (although still severe) droughts such as 1918 and 1983 fall in-between, and appear to align with Inter-Decadal Oscillation swings. Again, the pattern is quite regular.
Its funny, for the better part of 200 years, alternating drough and flood sequences have benn considered to be part of natural cycle (with the odd “good” year occuring from time to time!), until very recently. Now its all Man-Made Global Warming. Same weather patterns though……
vibenna: Your asked, “Or do you propose that PDO is the manifestation of ENSO feedback effects?”
Keep in mind that NINO3.4 SST anomaly data is just that, SST anomalies for the NINO3.4 region. But the PDO is a statistically manuafactured dataset. Refer my discussion here that explains how they calculate it:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-misunderstanding-about-pdo.html
The PDO is not a simple residual like the AMO. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/amo-versus-mid-latitude-north-pacific.html