Wrong, Deutsche Welle, There Is No Such Thing as a “Super El Niño,” Nor is it on Team Climate

Deutsche Welle (DW) claims in “How climate change is teaming up with ‘Super El Nino” that a developing “Super El Niño,” combined with climate change, could make 2026 one of the hottest years on record while increasing the risks of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world. This is highly misleading. El Niño are long-recognized naturally recurring ocean-atmosphere cycles that have operated for thousands of years and strong El Niño events have occurred periodically throughout history, long before industrial greenhouse gas emission began to increase.

The first red flag appears in the headline itself. There is no official meteorological definition of a “Super El Niño.”

Neither the World Meteorological Organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, nor the American Meteorological Society recognizes “Super El Niño” as a formal scientific classification. Meteorologists describe El Niño events by measuring sea surface temperature anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region of the tropical Pacific. They may characterize an event as weak, moderate, strong, or very strong, but “Super El Niño” is largely a media invention designed to make a naturally occurring climate pattern sound unprecedented.

That alone should make readers skeptical.

El Niño is not a new phenomenon, nor is it evidence of climate change. Long before automobiles, coal-fired power plants, or industrial emissions existed, El Niño events periodically warmed the tropical Pacific Ocean, temporarily altering normal weather patterns around the globe. Paleoclimate records from corals, lake sediments, and other shell middens, and other proxy data show that El Niño events have repeatedly occurred for thousands of years.

Nothing about its existence is evidence of a climate crisis. DW also suggests that climate change is “teaming up” with El Niño to produce record warmth.

That statement reverses cause and effect.

El Niño transfers enormous amounts of stored ocean heat into the atmosphere. That is precisely why global temperatures often spike during strong El Niño years and then decline as La Niña conditions return. This pattern has repeated for centuries.

The strong 1997-98 El Niño produced record global temperatures.

The powerful 2015-16 El Niño did the same.

More recently, the 2023-24 El Niño contributed to another jump in global temperatures before they began moderating as the event weakened. There is nothing unprecedented about this sequence, which is made clear in the Figure below.

It is exactly what climatologists expect from a strong El Niño. DW further claims that El Niño could intensify heat waves, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and marine heat waves around the world.

Some of those statements contain a speck of truth, but mostly they are misleading talking points.

El Niño does influence weather patterns globally. It can make some regions temporarily wetter and others drier. It can suppress Atlantic hurricane activity while increasing hurricane activity in parts of the Pacific. It affects rainfall, temperatures, and storm tracks across much of the globe.

But that is very different from claiming El Niño automatically causes more weather disasters worldwide.

Wildfires depend on ignition sources, fuel loads, forest management, humidity, and local weather. Heat waves have occurred throughout recorded history, long before anyone worried about greenhouse gases. Droughts and floods are influenced by regional circulation patterns that vary considerably from one El Niño event to another.

Simply invoking El Niño and climate change together does not establish that either is responsible for any particular extreme weather event, much less every such event. DW also repeats a common media refrain that climate change remains “the main driver” of rising temperatures while El Niño merely amplifies its effects.

That claim is presented as settled fact, but no evidence is offered by DW to support it.

In reality, year-to-year changes in global temperature are overwhelmingly dominated by natural variability, particularly the transition between El Niño and La Niña. That is why global temperatures can rise sharply during a strong El Niño and then level off or even decline afterward. Over decades and centuries, other natural oceanic current patterns, like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Pacific Meridional Overturning Circulation are significant factors in climate change as they redistribute ocean heat.

Natural variability remains a major driver of short-term climate fluctuations. Perhaps the biggest journalistic failure is that DW never distinguishes between weather forecasting and climate attribution.

Forecasting that a strong El Niño may influence global weather over the coming months is reasonable science. Claiming that climate change is “teaming up” with El Niño to produce nearly every type of extreme weather is speculation. Those are not the same thing.

The article also hints that 2027 could be even hotter, despite acknowledging that the future evolution of El Niño remains uncertain. That is another projection built upon assumptions, not observations.

No one knows today what the global average temperature will be in 2027 because it will depend on countless variables, including the evolution of ENSO, volcanic activity, cloud cover, ocean circulation, and other natural influences that cannot be predicted with certainty years in advance.

Good journalism should help readers understand the difference between natural climate variability and long-term climate trends. DW’s story linking the developing strong El Niño to climate change is not good journalism.

Readers deserve better than catchy labels and speculative headlines. They deserve reporting that distinguishes between what scientists actually know, what climate models project, and what remains uncertain. In this case, DW chose drama over clarity, turning one of Earth’s oldest natural climate cycles into yet another vehicle for climate alarmism.

Anthony Watts Thumbnail

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 14 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
62 Comments
August 25, 2026 10:34 am

We know there’s no official scientific definition of media hyperbole, either, but we sure as heck know it when we see it. “All doomsday, all the time,” is no way to educate the public.

These faculty lounge speculations bring to mind the remark of a certain British actress from many years ago.

quote-i-do-not-really-care-what-people-do-as-long-as-they-do-not-do-it-in-the-street-and-frighten-mrs-patrick-campbell-58-12-67
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  tom_gelsthorpe
August 27, 2026 6:57 am

The Lansing State Journal proposed a definition many years ago when it defined “Scan and Scroll” that identifies people read the headline and an opening sentence or two and think they know all. This is used by media to bury the truth many paragraphs down so readers never get to it.

Giving_Cat
August 25, 2026 10:46 am

This is only going to get worse as the last of the old school committed to straight reporting are replaced with a generation of journalists raised from their earliest schooling on a diet of climate alarmism and advocacy media.

Mr.
Reply to  Giving_Cat
August 25, 2026 11:31 am

Yes, it saddens me that “degree-qualified” journalists news reporters these days just cobble together tidbits of “the narrative” as their contributions to enlightening the public about newsworthy events.

Anyone want to bet that msm “journalism” and endlessly-modeled “climate science” will be among the first “professions” to be replaced by AI apps?

oeman50
Reply to  Mr.
August 26, 2026 4:35 am

Indeed. Why do research and actually use reason to craft your “journalism?” Especially when it is available in cut-n-paste form from advocates.

Reply to  Mr.
August 26, 2026 5:38 am

Actually the Deniers are being replaced — by Bots

Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 26, 2026 6:13 am

Chuckle. That’s the pot referring to the kettle, to be sure. WB could be replaced by one of those pull string toys that spoke to kids years ago.

Reply to  Mark Whitney
August 26, 2026 8:50 am

So you call yourself a Denier?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 26, 2026 11:22 am

No. I was not the one who mindlessly used that phrase. That is what the bots call people who think and question dogma.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 26, 2026 7:09 am

*meow*

August 25, 2026 11:55 am

If you want to scare the world about a monster, might as well make it a Super version. 🙂

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 25, 2026 12:06 pm

So I asked ChatGPT about how terrified we should all be.

fa31d6a1-b657-4c92-a8cd-e592badca272
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 25, 2026 5:17 pm

”Panic news 24/7”

Lol!

SxyxS
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 25, 2026 12:47 pm

2 Supervillains unite to destroy earth.

But Superman will save…well he renounced his US citizenship at the
UN.(no domain that hasn’t been corrupted)
So UN will save us now from the villains with the ultimate Superpower none of the greatest Superentities ever had.
Taxation.

Simon
August 25, 2026 12:04 pm

I know it is not the place, but I think Dolly Parton needs acknowledging as not just a great song writer, (personally I am not a fan of country music, but she stepped it up a gear) but also a very decent human being. She will be missed on this planet.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2026 12:49 pm

+100

John Hultquist
Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2026 1:01 pm

Whitney Houston’s I will Always Love You is the best known; not, I think, considered country. 

Mr.
Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2026 1:29 pm

It is the place Simon.

And I and most other visitors here will no doubt 100% agree with your comment.

Reply to  Simon
August 25, 2026 4:03 pm

Yes, God Bless, Dolly. She was a special person.

oeman50
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2026 4:46 am

Agreed! And thanks, Simon. I had not heard the news.

Many moons ago, my family was staying in the same hotel as Dolly and Porter Wagoner. We were riding down in the elevator when they both got on, heading to their show at a local venue. They were in their full show regalia. My dad looked down at Dolly and my mom elbowed him.

Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2026 6:15 am

Saw her with Kenny years ago. Rest well, Dear Lady.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
August 26, 2026 1:32 pm

And now Tim Curry. His song coming down the elevator (sweet transvestite) in the RHPC was maybe the greatest performance in a rock opera.

ResourceGuy
August 25, 2026 12:11 pm

The current scare assault across many media groups with a regular, short-term cycle in the Pacific is another clue that media groups and climate communicator consultants assume low information viewers are easy marks. They might be right.

Mary Jones
August 25, 2026 12:16 pm

Calling this year’s El Niño “super” vs “strong” really isn’t a big deal. I think it is more important to call out the false apocalyptic claims that go along with the term.

Reply to  Mary Jones
August 26, 2026 6:18 am

“Strong” is descriptive. “Super” is hype. The former is a tool of science. the latter is a tool of decption.

ResourceGuy
August 25, 2026 12:20 pm

How about calling it a desert quencher or a thunderstorm with a twist of CO2 fertilizer.

Sparta Nova 4
August 25, 2026 12:47 pm

Just one nit. There is no global average temperature.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 25, 2026 1:09 pm

If I take the height of major league men basketball players and the height of all the 8th grade girls playing soccer — I can calculate an average height. Also, I could also add in the height of all congress critters. An average height is calculatable. As a concept, it doesn’t make much sense. Still, it would be represent a mark on the number line.
Instead of throwing out a statement, why not indicate what is wrong with the concept of a global average temperature. 

Reply to  John Hultquist
August 25, 2026 1:31 pm

A bit pedantic but here you go. Basic mathematics.

Height is an extensive property. Therefore it is additive. Therefore an average of those added (the mean) has mathematical meaning—even if not logical meaning. Your examples.

Temperature is an intensive property. Therefore it is NOT additive. There an average is mathematically meaningless. Even tho people can run the numbers as if it were.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 25, 2026 3:34 pm

And averaging sparce and erratic, tainted 2m surface temperatures, and combining them with spasmodic ocean measurements from buckets and engine intakes, including data which is totally made up…

Totally FARCICAL !

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 25, 2026 4:22 pm

To be pedantic extensive and intensive have nothing to do with mathematics. They are terms used in thermodynamics. Mathematically you can average anything as long as you can add them. But the results may or may not be physically meaningful despite making sense mathematically.

Furthermore height is neither an intensive or extensive property. Volume is an extensive property but height isn’t. The height of two people is not the sum of their heights (unless one is standing on the other) but the volume of two people is the sum of their individual volumes. Hence volume is extensive but height isn’t.

Similarly if I have N boxes each with a different shape then their combined height would depend on how I stack them. But their combined volume does not depend on how I stack them but is just the sum of the individual volumes.

Physically it makes sense to calculate the average air temperature across the planet. The atmosphere is uniform enough that it can be considered as a single entity for such purposes.

real bob boder
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 25, 2026 5:00 pm

2 dimensionally height is every bit as additive as volume is in three.
Temperature in a chaotic system is not in any dimension, in fact temperature in an atmosphere ruled by the water cycle is all but meaningless whether averaged or not.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  real bob boder
August 25, 2026 5:41 pm

How is height additive? If I have two people one of whom is 1.8 metres tall and the other is 1.2 metres tall and stand them next to each other the total height is only 1.8 metres. If I put one on top of the other then and only then is their combined height 3 metres. In contrast their volumes and masses are additive and that doesn’t depend on whether they are next to each other or on top of each other.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 26, 2026 4:39 pm

I hate to tell you this but when you add two lengths, you are adding them end to end. Adding parallel lengths and saying the total length is the longest one is what a troll would do.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2026 4:57 pm

Jim,
Suppose I have one box with dimensions 3m x 4m x 5m and a second box with dimensions of 2m x 1m x 10m what is their total length or their total height? It is not a sensible question since unless you specify which way you are stacking the boxes you can get any number of different answers. Volume is different — it doesn’t matter how you stack them the volume of the two boxes is always just the sum of their individual volumes. Hence volume is extensive but length isn’t.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 27, 2026 7:10 am

Your point, that you missed, is that mathematics requires context to relate to physical reality.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 27, 2026 7:08 am

You argued out your primary point.

If I put one on top of the other then and only then is their combined height 3 metres.

Additive.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 26, 2026 4:35 pm

Mathematically you can average anything as long as you can add them.

Mathematically you can average NUMBERS. Physically you cannot average intensive properties because they don’t add. 70° + 70° IS NOT 140°. Red + Red is not some Double Red. In fact if you place two identical blocks, each at 70°, together, you will have a larger block at 70°. Now if each block was 10g, you would end up with 20g, and yes those extensive values do add.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 26, 2026 4:57 pm

Furthermore height is neither an intensive or extensive property. Volume is an extensive property but height isn’t.

I hate to tell you this, but length is an extensive value. Adding two lengths IS done by adding them end to end and the system size increases. If you place two different lengths side by side, the lengths are not added, but their widths (another definition of length) do add. Again, the system is increased.

If the boxes have different shapes, the height of each box will probably need to be determined geometrically depending on how you position it in the stack. However, the derived heights will add, and the total height can be measured, i.e., an extensive property.

Do you ever research anything BEFORE you post? It sure doesn’t seem to be the case.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 26, 2026 6:45 pm

Suppose I have one box that has a cylindrical hole in it and another box that exactly fits in the hole. If I place the cylinder inside the hole the height of the system does not change. But the volume still adds. It is the same with stacking — the total height depends on how I stack the objects and there is no physical reason to prefer one way to the other but no matter what I always get the same answer for the combined volume. Any physical quantity that depends on human choice for its value is not an extensive property nor is even a meaningful one.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 27, 2026 7:14 am

The volume of the cylinder with the hole (presumed to go completely through from face to face) is the volume contained within the walls, not merely the exterior dimension.

If you fill your holed cylinder with water and fill your second cylinder with water and slip the second into the first, you have the sum of their volumes.

If your cylinder with the hole does not have an internal wall, it has no defined volume in the context of your post. Since it is open, it has an infinite volume.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 27, 2026 7:07 am

“To be pedantic extensive and intensive have nothing to do with mathematics.”

I can agree with that single sentence. The rest of your argument is seriously flawed.

One needs to be up on the Theory of Mathematics to comprehend.
Math is symbolic. It is based on 2 fundamental assumptions. 1: There is a unit quantity (1) and 2: There are operands that can combine quantities.

1 + 1 = 2 is only a quantity calculation.
Relating to reality:
You have 1 red delicious apple and set it on a table.
Now you place 1 golden delicious apple next to the red.
You have 2 apples, which is a context change as you do not have 2 red or 2 golden.

Mathematics is only a symbolic representation of realities when qualifiers are used (ohms, degrees C, etc.). Ignoring the qualifiers, one can calculate any number but without a valid context.

Physically it makes no sense to calculate the average air temperature across the planet. The atmosphere is not sufficiently uniform that it can be considered a single entity. Can you really average the temperature at a point in the Sahara with the temperature at a point in Antarctica and get anything meaningful as a result? No

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 26, 2026 4:45 am

all that means is that the product of temperature and mass has to integrated across the mass under consideration. So yes, average temperature of a body of water, or land mass (for example), when calculated as a weighted average, is not mathematically meaningless.

Mr.
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 25, 2026 1:37 pm

The GAT is a convoluted numerical construct using averages of averages of averages of averages . . .

And all while the probity & provenance of the foundational temperatures “data” input is abysmally delinquent.

Truly NOT FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE.

oeman50
Reply to  John Hultquist
August 26, 2026 4:51 am

And you can carry that average out to 3 decimal places, that does not make it a worthwhile number.

Reply to  John Hultquist
August 26, 2026 4:21 pm

Instead of throwing out a statement, why not indicate what is wrong with the concept of a global average temperature. 

Because temperature is not a good proxy for heat.

Warm water from the Eastern Pacific is driven west by trade winds stripping the heated water and moving it west. A large volume of warm water is established around Indonesia and Australia. When the trade winds die or reverse, that warm water all sloshes eastward and spreads the stored heat over a large area in the Pacific. That heat is not caused by CAGW, it has a natural source. Does it really raise the amount of stored heat supposedly caused by greater amounts of CO2. Not really.

Thermometers and satellites see it as NEW heat as if the globe has suddenly warmed. It is really just previously stored OLD heat being kept in a small area and then spread around like peanut butter on bread. The atmospheric warming has nothing to do with GHE, GHG’s, or CO2 and it shouldn’t really be counted as the globe warming. The warming has already occurred but was kept in a small area and El Nino just lets it spread out.

Looking at temperature just doesn’t tell the whole story.

Curious George
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 25, 2026 6:14 pm

There is no global average temperature. That’s your personal opinion. An average U.S. family has 2.3 kids. Logically, there is no – not one – average U.S. family.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Curious George
August 27, 2026 7:18 am

You just proved the point that there is no global average with your example.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 26, 2026 8:49 am

Yes there is. The product of mass and temperature , integrated over the mass under consideration (eg, the Earth).

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 27, 2026 7:19 am

No. It is not integrated over the mass under consideration (eg., the Earth). It is averaged on the surface of the earth, which by definition is the boundary between land/water and atmosphere and as a boundary, has no mass.

August 25, 2026 1:49 pm

The climate warriors in the head photo are making a gallant effort to save the Foosball table.

Edward Katz
August 25, 2026 5:57 pm

Babbling away about the adverse effects of an El Nino doesn’t have enough impact any more, so now the alarmists have concocted a Super El Nino so that they can add a few more scare stories to the climate narrative. And when the credibility of this one runs out of steam, the next one will be labelled The Ultra-Super El Nino ad nauseam.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Edward Katz
August 25, 2026 6:11 pm

Win the day courtroom tactics have an analog in climate crisis storytelling.

Iain Reid
August 26, 2026 12:38 am

Quote from the article:-
“Readers deserve better than catchy labels and speculative headlines. They deserve reporting that distinguishes between what scientists actually know, what climate models project, and what remains uncertain. In this case, DW chose drama over clarity, turning one of Earth’s oldest natural climate cycles into yet another vehicle for climate alarmism.”

I think we will wait for a very long time before the media alters its writing or broadcasting to give accuracy and real facts.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 27, 2026 7:20 am

Not worth the powder.

August 26, 2026 5:01 am
Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
August 26, 2026 4:23 pm

Well, we never saw the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods either, where conditions could be headed for again now.

And nature shows once again how it changes conditions here on Earth fairly regularly.
(‘regularly’ being a relative term that we use to reflect our “newcomer” status as a species.
Nature works in periods of hundreds of thousands & millions of our years, while we (well some of us) think that 30 years is enough to figure our what the existential conditions here on Earth are. Now THAT is delusional).

August 26, 2026 7:43 am

The article also hints that 2027 could be even hotter, despite acknowledging that the future evolution of El Niño remains uncertain. That is another projection built upon assumptions, not observations.”

Observations so far indicate that it would be surprising if it weren’t hotter.

comment image

Reply to  Phil.
August 26, 2026 10:54 am

Alfredo sauce?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phil.
August 27, 2026 7:23 am

Would not be surprising is different that will be.
If you look at all the faint gray cycles, there is nothing unusual in the shape of the curve other than it appears a tad higher than the others plotted, which only go back 35 years.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 27, 2026 1:20 pm

Most of the years show a max in May and a decline through September which is not what we’re seeing this year. Current value is ~1ºC above the highest previous, the data is from 1982.