From the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA:
Many tropical Pacific island nations are struggling to adapt to gradual sea level rise stemming from warming oceans and melting ice caps. Now they may also see much more frequent extreme interannual sea level swings. The culprit is a projected behavioral change of the El Niño phenomenon and its characteristic Pacific wind response, according to recent computer modeling experiments and tide-gauge analysis by scientists Matthew Widlansky and Axel Timmermann at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, and their colleague Wenju Cai at CSIRO in Australia.
During El Niño, warm water and high sea levels shift eastward, leaving in their wake low sea levels in the western Pacific. Scientists have already shown that this east-west seesaw is often followed six months to a year later by a similar north-south sea level seesaw with water levels dropping by up to one foot (30 cm) in the Southern Hemisphere. Such sea level drops expose shallow marine ecosystems in South Pacific Islands, causing massive coral die-offs with a foul smelling tide called taimasa (pronounced [kai’ ma’sa]) by Samoans.
The team of scientists recently asked, how will future greenhouse warming affect the El Niño sea level seesaws? The scientist used state-of-the-art climate models, which accounted for increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, together with simulations of the observed climate and tide-gauge records to verify the model results. They determined that projected climate change will enhance El Niño-related sea level extremes. By the end of this century the experiments show that the intensified wind impacts of strong El Niño and La Niña events are likely to double the frequency of extreme sea level occurrences, especially in the tropical southwestern Pacific.
“From our previous work, we know that toward the end of a very strong El Niño event, the tide-gauge measurements around Guam quickly return to normal reflecting the east-west seesaw, but those near Samoa continue to drop as a result of the lagging north-south seesaw,” explains Widlansky. “During these strong events, the summer rainband over Samoa, called the South Pacific Convergence Zone, shifts toward the equator and alters the trade winds and ocean currents which in turn change the sea level.”
“The next logical step in our work was to understand how future changes in winds, projected by most climate models, will impact the interannual swings in sea level,” recalls Timmermann. “We noted a trend in greater variability and were surprised at first to find not only more frequent and prolonged drops in sea level, but also more frequent high sea level events. This will further increase the risk of coastal inundations.”
“Our results are consistent with previous findings that showed the atmospheric effects of both El Niño and La Niña are likely to become stronger and more common in a future warmer climate,” explains Cai.
“The possibility of more frequent flooding in some areas and sea level drops in others would have severe consequences for the vulnerable coastlines of Pacific islands,” says Widlansky.
The authors hope that better predictability of not only rising sea levels, but also the sea level fluctuations examined in this study, will aid Pacific Island communities in adapting to the impacts of climate change as well as shorter-term climate events such as the ongoing 2015 El Niño.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“We noted a trend in greater variability and were surprised at first to find not only more frequent and prolonged drops in sea level, but also more frequent high sea level events. This will further increase the risk of coastal inundations.”
It is astounding to my mind that this quote is a reference to a phenomenon which was discovered in the output of a computer program.
Well done idiots – for NOTING a trend which was created by a computer program.
But, has it not occurred to these people that they should possibly be validating that trend by comparison with the real world. The one that exists outside of an unvalidated computer program.
Are these people now slightly confused about which world is more real?
When they say that they noted a trend and were surprised – it sounds as though they must be talking about a real trend in the real world.
But what they noted and what they were surprised by was all happening inside a computer.
Maybe these guys are trapped inside the matrix.
But there is an alternative interpretation:
“The purpose of our work was to draw on the delusional scaremongering and attention grabbing, but unvalidated predictions of others and then to extend these to generate more scaremongering and attention grabbing and equally unvalidated predictions of our own. We have done this by convincing ourselves that we all live in a big computer. We noted that delusional scaremongerers have recently been receiving all the big buck projects and grants and we thought that by pulling the same sort of stunt, we could maybe grab a piece of the pie. Thanks for all the money”.
P.S. Apart from my dismissive negativity, I do also have a positive and helpful suggestion.
It may be wise for us to first develop a hypothesis and then validate that hypothesis via empirical testing before using that hypothesis to generate an entire world of further beliefs and predictions.
It should be remembered that the output of computers is still only a part of the process of developing a testable hypothesis. Running the program is not equivalent to testing the hypothesis.
We should not allow ourselves to be duped into assuming that because the “result” came out of the mysterious world inside a computer that it possesses an intrinsic reality, already.
Looking at the output computer program is not the time for surprise or discovery.
Discovery is what happens when the hypothesis is tested and found to show reliable correspondence with measurable phenomenon in the real objective universe (outside of the computer).
Just a suggestion, going forward.
I don’t know if I could ever see that idea being adopted.
Surely you jest in using empirical testing in a discussion of climate projection and climate models. We must listen and believe. If we listen and believe no further proof is required.
Third paragraph: “The scientist used state-of-the-art climate models…” Seriously? Do we really need to even read further?
Let’s see how Tuvalu is “struggling to adapt to gradual sea level rise stemming from warming oceans and melting ice caps”. Data is to August inst, trend line (red) is 25-point Loess.
Darwin is already seeing the effect of the current El Niño. Sea level there is currently (August) about the same as 20 years ago.
The PDO signature here seems apparent.
Models + CSIRO. Must be true then.
If a phenomenon occurs frequently enough to have its own name, then I submit there’s nothing unusual going on. Note to the authors: unless you have 100% reliable pre-cogs floating in sensory deprivation tanks, somewhere, then you ought to describe something likely to happen in the future with “could be,” “should be” or “will be,” depending on how certain you are. But something that has not happened never “is.”
Am I missing something here – what exactly are simulations of observed events? Is it like when an actor on a green screen stage simulates seeing a dinosaur or space creature?
Also interesting the Freudian slip of climate models “accounted for”, instead of “showing the results of”. “Accounted for” implies intent, the models were intended to show a certain result from increased greenhouse gas.
I’m so glad they used the state-of-the-art climate models, not the old crappy ones – you know, the ones that couldn’t preject their way out of a paper bag.
On top of the risk of the purported CAGW rise in sea level due to CO2 emissions, there are other agents to consider, such as tsunamis and storm surges occasioned by cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes.
Let’s see now: Sea level in the Pacific sloshes up and down up about a foot a year in response to El Nino, and several feet twice daily in response to the moon (and sun), but current global SLR of perhaps 1 inch per decade is a catastrophe.
” Many tropical Pacific island nations are struggling to adapt to gradual sea level rise ”
They are doing so by building more resorts and airport runways.
This is the logical solution to sea level rise. 😉
Another (boring) paper on ‘Sea Level’, so I will post the (boring to some) link to a short video of the complexities of determining what real ‘Sea Level’,realy Is.
Now after watching this,what honest scientist can stand up and proclaim that they can state ‘Sea Level’ to the millimetre.
Climatology=Climastrology=laughfing stock of Science.
Such sea level drops expose shallow marine ecosystems in South Pacific Islands, causing massive coral die-offs with a foul smelling tide called taimasa
==============
if sea levels are rising, how can a sea level drop expose corals? they would have long ago been killed off when the sea levels were lower.
Now ferd, we have to assume that all coral on the planet was perfectly healthy before the vermin of humanity began belching out gasses which have erased all natural climate cycles (and common sense) and sent us into the unprecedented global (fiscal and ideological) catastrophe known as “the war on climate”.
Sorry Mr President but New Zealand’s Supreme Court has deliberated on the matter-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/we_will_see_them/
El Nino was predicted for last year and nothing materialized. So why would I give any creditbility to end-of-century pedictions/projections ?
Are you brain-dead? Don’t you read other posts on this blog? What would you give credibility to?
e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/21/september-2015-enso-update-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-to-rise-in-the-central-equatorial-pacific/
Intertidal zone nerd here. I know the finer points of pickleweed and cord grass. So, as anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of this stuff knows, these communities are hypersensitive to mean high tide lines as well as the reach of the king tides. The profiles are very flat and a few inches of sea level increase moves the interfaces for the flora noticeably. Some of my marshes have been witnessed by yours truly going on 50 years (my earliest reliable memories of the marshes are around age 3-1/2 or 4). So, I am reporting no detectable changes for nearly 1/2 century. Caveat – this is SF Bay. This not a sinking tectonic platform at one of the world’s passive margins, and we are beyond the reach of isostatic glacial rebound. YMMV.