Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The new 2015 paper by Cai et al Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming has been getting a lot of alarmist attention recently. Examples: see the CBS News story Climate change expected to bring more La Niñas, and the BBC News article Study: Global warming ‘doubles risk’ of extreme weather, and, for those of you who are multilingual, see the German journal Bild der Wissenschaft post Mehr Besuche der kalten Schwester von „El Niño”. [Thanks to bloggers Alec aka Daffy Duck, Paul Homewood and Werner Kohl for the heads-up.] Also see Paul Homewood’s post BBC – Global Warming Doubles Risk Of Extreme Weather at NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat.<.
Cai et al. (2015) 14 co-authors are a who’s-who of climate scientists, including Michael McPhaden of NOAA’s PMEL, who’s written numerous papers about ENSO; and Eric Guilyardi, who’s the lead author of Guilyardi et al. (2009) Understanding El Niño in Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models: progress and challenges.
We discussed Guilyardi et al. (2009) back in July 2012 in the post here. As you may recall, it was a study of how poorly the CMIP3-archived climate models simulated ENSO…that the models basically simulated no ENSO processes correctly. Thus one of their conclusions was:
Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).
Cai et al (2015) Increased frequency of extreme La Niña events under greenhouse warming is a companion paper to Cai et al (2013) Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. We discussed the earlier paper in the post Our Climate Models Are Aglow with Whirling, Transient Nodes of Thought Careening through a Cosmic Vapor of Invention. It included a link to and discussion of Bellenger et al. (2012), which described how poorly the CMIP5-archived models simulated ENSO. Once again, the models simulate little if anything correctly. The same arguments apply to the newer paper Cai et al (2015), so there’s no need to repeat them, so please see the “Climate Models are Aglow” post.
The following is from an update to the “Climate Models are Aglow” post about the earlier paper. It should also apply to the newer paper:
Brian Kahn also covered Cai et al. (2013) in his ClimateCentral post Climate Change Could Double Likelihood of Super El Ninos. (Thanks again Andrew for the link to the post at HockeySchtick.) Brian Kahn’s article included the following and a remarkable quote from Kevin Trenberth:
The core of Cai’s results, that more super El Ninos are likely, was disputed by Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Corporation [sic] for Atmospheric Research.
He said some of the models used in the study overestimate the past number of El Nino events by a wide margin and do a poor job of representing them and their impacts.
“This seriously undermines the confidence that the models do an adequate job in ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) simulations and so why should we trust their future projections?” he said in an email.
Trenberth also said that some long-range climate models also fail to adequately simulate other natural climate patterns that influence El Nino let alone how they might also shift in a warming world.
Trenberth asked,“…so why should we trust their [climate models’] future projections?”
The obvious answer is ____________________ [I’ll let you fill in the blank].
Extreme La Bambas to Become More Frequent under Global Warming.
New paper claims digital breakthrough events linked to defective toilet paper to become more frequent under global warming.
Lead author – Steve Lewandowsky.
I would say that is correct, increased forcing of the climate increases La Nina conditions, and also increases positive NAO/AO, which is directly associated with stronger trade winds. Increased forcing of the climate over a number of years will also cool the AMO. Such that there is no need for aerosols to explain the (global) cooling in the mid 1970’s.
The multi-year and stronger La Nina’s are all when the solar wind is faster, and the big El Nino’s occur when it is slower, apart from those during cooling effects from large volcanic eruptions.
http://snag.gy/hSqT4.jpg
Oh look. Bob Tisdale doesn’t like a science paper that challenges his ideology.
It must be a day ending in ‘y’.
Is that all you’ve got, troll?
Please below the data of El Nino and La Nina years under different rainfall conditions under Indian context for 1880 to 2006:
Condition — below normal — normal — above normal — total
[number of years]
El Nino — 12 — 05 –01 — 18
Normal — 27 — 37 — 20 — 84
La Nina – 00 — 14 — 17 — 34
Total — 39 –49 — 38 — 126
Out of 126 years, the rainfall was below normal in 39 years and above normal in 38 years with 49 years normal. El Nino years are 18 and La Nina years are 34. This s normal condition.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
The warmer the climate globally, the less steep the temperature gradient between the polar and equatorial regions and the less convective turbulence and extreme weather as a result.
I have no idea what Cai et al are smoking.
On 27 January the Australian CSIRO released a statement “Greenhouse warming increases frequency of devastating La Nina events” based on research published in “Nature Climate Change”. The “study used 21 climate models that participated in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.”, had a lead author, Dr Wenju Cai, and a co-author, Dr Guojian Wang, both from CSIRO.
It is incredible that anyone would use the IPCC climate models when they have repeatedly failed to correctly predict actual changes in climate. Even worse, the models are based on the IPCC claim that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes an increase in global temperature when data from the CSIRO’s own field stations plainly shows this to be false.
The CSIRO undertakes CO2 and temperature measurements at Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, at Macquarie Island and the Antarctic bases of Casey and Mawson. The resulting data is freely available on the Internet.
Statistical analysis of the data shows that there is no significant correlation between monthly changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero.
Further, analysis shows that correlation between annual increments in each variable are, again, not statistically significant, some being negative values, so there is definitely no measurable causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Hence there is no justification to issue catastrophic climate predictions based on the erroneous IPCC claim.
However, correlation between the CO2 data and the relevant Satellite lower tropospheric temperature reveals that the annual increment in CO2 concentration is highly correlated with the average satellite temperature for the period concerned with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. This means that the increase in temperature since the last ice age has been driving the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the reverse as the IPCC would have us believe.
It is sad to see a once highly respected Australian institution sink to such a low level.
The CSRO (As it was called) lost all credibility in 1935 IMO when it worked with Brisbane sugar companies and the Queensland Govn’t to introduce the cane toad all the while wanting to introduce the European toad in other parts of the country.
There is however a severe risk of a leadership challenge on Abbott by Turnbull (And to be fair Abbott is not doing himself any favours such as awarding a knighthood to Prince Phillip, the Greek husband of the Queen of England – Silly boy!). If Turnbull challenges, and wins, that will be the end of the debate on climate change in Australia if that happens. Turnbull is a pro-AGW believer and staunch supporter of a carbon tax (Ex- bankers) and very much liked by the ALP and Greens.
Blowing hot and cold.
the obvious answer is: “CO2 is the most versatile fragment in our atmosphere that drives warm and cold spells. look: our models are always correct in proving this fact”
but in truth they forget to mention: climate has never been stable today it goes up and stagnates now, it may go up again in future, but also down. “we do not know what future brings for our earth’s climate” would be the only correct scientific answer.
But we really do know what is going to happen next.
There is around a 100% chance we will soon slide into another Ice Age. It is pretty much inevitable.
Thanks for all the science, but I got lost at doubling the risk. Extreme weather is already a 100% certainty. Are they twice as absolutely certain that we will experience “extreme” weather? Are they making a verifiable statement such as there will be twice as many F5 tornadoes in the world or in the US or twice as many sub-zero days in Europe? No. I didn’t think so.
New Paper Claims Pre-Existing Tautology Is Caused By Anthropogenic CO2 Because Tautology
Thanks, Bob. You have shown the GCMs failure to model ENSO, and the importance of ENSO in Earth’s climate; There is no reason to trust the GCMs.
“Climate change expected to bring more La Niñas”
Ever notice how many climate change studies say, “expected”, “predicted”, “could” and “might”. It reminds me of Wayne Campbell “Wayne’s World” saying, “yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt”.
“This I had also forseen”
The Soothsayer in “Asterix and the Soothsayer”.
“Study: Global warming ‘doubles risk’ of extreme weather,”
But on Hockey Schtick I see
“New paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/new-paper-finds-global-warming-reduces.html
What sort of doom am I supposed to prophecy?