New El Niño threatens world with weather woe
Forecasters say this one is brewing up to be the second-strongest on record
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
A new El Niño has begun. The sporadic Pacific Ocean warming, which can disrupt weather patterns across the world, is intensifying, say meteorologists.
So, over the next few months, there may be increased drought in Africa, India and Australia, heavier rainfall in South America and increased extremes in Britain, of warm and cold. It may make 2010 one of the hottest years on record.
The cyclical phenomenon, which happens every two to seven years, is a major determinant of global weather systems. The 1997-98 El Niño combined with global warming to push 1998 into being the world's hottest year, and caused major droughts and catastrophic forest fires in South-east Asia which sent a pall of smoke right across the region.
At present, forecasters do not expect this El Niño to equal that of 1998, but it may be the second-strongest, and concerned groups, from international insurance companies to commodity traders, to aid agencies such as Oxfam, have begun to follow its progress anxiously. Its potential for economic and social impact is considerable.
Professor Chris Folland, of the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said: "We are likely to see more global warming than we have seen in the past few years, which have been rather cool. In fact, we are already seeing it."
El Niño is a periodic warming of the normally cold waters of the eastern tropical Pacific, the ocean region westwards out from South America along the line of the equator. Since the Pacific is a heat reservoir which drives wind patterns around the world, the change in its temperature alters global weather. An El Niño is defined by ocean surface temperatures rising by more than 0.5C above the average.
This El Niño is well beyond that, says the Climate Prediction Center of the US National Weather Service. "Sea surface temperatures remain +0.5 to +1.5 above average across much of the equatorial Pacific Ocean," the centre reported last week. "Observations and dynamical model forecasts indicate El Niño conditions will continue to intensify and are expected to last through the northern hemisphere winter of 2009-10."
The last El Niño was in 2006-07 and, at its peak, sea surface temperatures averaged about 0.9 degrees above normal. But this is a stage which has already been reached by this one.
The last El Niño, comparatively weak though it was, is thought to have been partly responsible for the extraordinarily warm weather in Britain between the summer of 2006 and the spring of 2007: July 2006 was Britain's hottest month, autumn 2006 (September, October and November) was the warmest autumn, winter 2006-07 (December, January and February) was the second warmest in Britain, and April 2007 was our warmest April.
People have forgotten this because there then began our recent cooler and wetter period, with Britain's two "washout summers" of 2007 and 2008, and they may, in turn, have been associated with the counter-phenomenon of La Niña, a cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific waters, which followed. The start of the present El Niño was one reason the Met Office predicted a "barbecue summer" for 2009.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Will the world get warmer if there is an El Nino? Yes, that's extremely likely. In recent paper that I co-wrote with Professor Bob Carter and Professor Chris de Freitas we showed that the the average global temperature as measured from satellites shifts about 7 months after a corresponding shift in the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The visual correlation is so good (see our figure 7) that its clear that the ENSO is the primary driver. The absence of any residual warming (i.e. warming that the ENSO cannot account for) means that carbon dioxide has negligible, if any, effect.
See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2
In anticipation of certain comments... (a) we use the analysis as a means of exploring a relationship and as a means to an end, which figure 7 amply demonstrates, (b) we do not use temperature data measured at the surface because it has far too many inconsistencies, and (c) we often use the word "trends" in a general sense rather than a statistical sense (where the exact line will be described to an accuracy of several decimal places).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2
.....and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
It works with everything else... doesn't it ?
Toolan
On a similar line, I can hardly wait for the earths magnetic field to flip
( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n
as it is due to do, in order to see Gore, et al, say "We told you so, you meat-eating, CO2 emitting, Luddites. Now look what you've done !"
Toolan
Strange, bearing in mind that the alarmists claimed a few years ago that natural forcings were all very small against the dreaded radiative forcing and could have little or no effect. They predicted montonic increase in global mean surface temperature with increasing CO2 levels. However, there has been clear temperature hiatus since 1998 yet CO2 levels have risen year on year. Then recently we had the same AGW school suddenly predicting decadal global cooling.
Now we are back to global warming again! Also talk about cutting GHG emissions. Could it just have something to do with the great AGW love-in in Copenhagen in December? There certainly seems to be some panic in the church of Al Gore.
By the way Dr McLean, thank you for your link to your paper. Very interesting.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Janye in New Orleans
The facts in your reporting on climate change are contradictory to way things are according to Jeremey Clarkson. It's hurting my brain. Please report only those things that allow me to rationalize that my lifestyle choices have nothing to do with the destruction of the planet.
Thanks,
An Idiot
Let's try something new.... Let's learn how to write!!!
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/2
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.c
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2
As for the El Nino, there seem to be a few people here who don't understand/believe what they are. Have a look here for further information and proof :
http://www.el-nino.com/
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/pr
He also refuted Tamino here yesterday 04 August. Would you care to comment on his refutation. This is not a snide remark. I would be genuinely interested to know whether you agree with his refutation.
I also do not think that you should use realclimate as an authoritative source of refutation as they are, IMHO, a partial website.
i wonder if it will be as badly off base as all their other predictions?
Could they raise the rates?
Would it make sense for them to fund studies to scare their customers into buying more insurance and paying more for it?
network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomm
As they say in the biz, follow the money.
As for sunspots, I see that there will soon be another cycle but it is forecast to be weaker that the last two cycles (global cooling?).
Of course the earth has warmed "recently", but probably no warmer than the medeival warm period. There is a very good, non technical explanation at ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.h
Hmm, 'non technical' as in simplistic and wrong, unfortunately. One part of it criticises Mann's 'Hockey-Stick' without seemingly realising that it has been confirmed by many studies since, often using different proxies. See here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_
As for your link, the graph it uses finishes in 2004 using a non smoothed data point. If it uses a smoothed point in 2004 and is extended up to 2008 it would show, IMHO, the possible development of a top around 2002/2003. This may be a blip but it may herald a change in trend suggesting a problem with the IPCC Models.
This link shows his latest one, going back 2000 years :
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/man
colinru wrote : " If it uses a smoothed point in 2004 and is extended up to 2008 it would show, IMHO, the possible development of a top around 2002/2003. This may be a blip but it may herald a change in trend suggesting a problem with the IPCC Models."
Firstly, there are no IPCC Models as such : they take their data from the scientific papers.
But, anyway, no model predicts temperature from year to year, or from decade to decade. They predict the trend, knowing that there will be ups and downs on the way.
These are the latest temperature graphs, which show the long-term trend. With the second link, notice that this year's figure (in green) is looking as if it will be higher than the last few years :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graph
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/di
"..there a no IPCC Models ...". The IPCC uses several Models in its AR4 Paper but used Mannīs graph in its AR3 Paper. I never suggested Models predict temps from year to year. Another straw man!
"..this years figure ....will be higher than the last few years". You just finished telling me "ex-Cathedra" that the Models do not predict year to year and now you are trying to use a partial year to suggest that this year will be warmer than the last few years. You might at least have the decency to wait until the end of the year!
Things must be even more fraught than I thought over there in "warmist land" if you are having to grasp at straws like using a partial year to try to justify AGW. Your link (excluding partial years!) seems to me to prove that we have what looks like a top. We will find out in the next 3 to 5 years is this is a blip or a new Trend.
You originally wrote : "Mann was criticised because his original graph started at 1000 AD and thus did not emphasise the Mediaeval Warm Period"
That is why I pointed you the way to the latest graph, going back 2000 years and still not emphasising the so-called MWP. Therefore, your original mention of criticism is not valid anymore, is it ? Just trying to show you how things have moved on.
colinru wrote : "I never suggested Models predict temps from year to year. Another straw man!"
You originally wrote : "This may be a blip but it may herald a change in trend suggesting a problem with the IPCC Models."
So what 'problem' were you implying, then ? What length of trend were you using ?
colinru wrote : ""..this years figure ....will be higher than the last few years". You just finished telling me "ex-Cathedra" that the Models do not predict year to year and now you are trying to use a partial year to suggest that this year will be warmer than the last few years.
Please don't cherry-pick; we can all read my original statement : "notice that this year's figure (in green) is looking as if it will be higher than the last few years."
Models do not predict from year to year (as I stated); I don't predict from year to year; but from this year's figures so far, it LOOKS as if it will be a higher temperature this year than the last few years.
Do you see the difference ?
colinru wrote : "Things must be even more fraught than I thought over there in "warmist land""
Why do you feel the need to make things up and try to belittle others ? Shame.
The problem with the Models will be that if, as some Scientists have suggested, temps continue to decline then the Models have an error as this will contradict what they predict should happen. The graph area that I was referring to but did not state was from 1997 to 2008 whih appears to me to show a possible top in 2002,2003. Your referenced wiki entry seems to me to show this. It is too early to be sure and will require another 3 to 5 years to see if another trend has developed.
You say that I am cherry picking but you are using a partial year to try to imply that the top that I think may be developing is invalid. That seem to me to be a good definition of cherry picking and I can just imagine what your response would be if I had done that to back up my assertion of a possible trend change.
You accuse me of belittling you but this thread started because you accused a site of criticising the Mann Hockey stick graph and said that the Mann graph had been confirmed. I pointed out that there were, at least, 3 criticisms of the original Mann graph, 2 of which you have not refuted. The Mann graph was NOT confirmed. The fact, if it is a fact, that he got the right answer by using incorrect Mathematics does not make his original graph correct. It just means that he was lucky that later work overrode his original errors.
I thought that your response was a partial if not incorrect refutation of the reliability of the site that you criticised. When I tried to point this out in a reasonable way, you then tried to attack one of the 3 criticisms by using a straw man, IMHO. However, since you find my warmist land jibe offensive, I withdraw it unreservedly.
There are however a few things I'd say before I bow out.
Firstly I apologise for the bogus 99.5% figure. 99% of statistics are made up, as they say, and it was the 97% figure I was shooting for. I was under the impression that I was commenting on an article within the newspaper proper (or other online newspapers) and I'm used to seeing the (relatively) uneducated majority act like scientists are making things up and that the data collected is nonsense. Frankly, the comment I was replying to sounded exactly like the kind of thing you find there, and the mention of El Nino as scaremongering supported that in my mind even further. If I thought I was talking to a scientist, I would have been more careful and checked any figures.
I would like to support the point that science is always theoretical, because it really is true. I studied physics at university myself and understand that you can be extremely certain of a theory to the point that most people will call it fact, but all you have is a theory that is extremely well established and well supported, possibly lacking a credible alternative. So it is fundamentally true, even if practically there are cases where something will be called a fact.
Finally I would point something out that I don't see mentioned all that often:
Assume for a moment that human-impacted climate change is true. Now go 50, 75, 100 years into the future and consider the damage and cost that could have if we do nothing, to adapting communities, to the species that become extinct, to the communities on the water line that are displaced, and all the other impacts that have been sensationalised to such an extent. That's a huge cost and a lot to lose.
Now consider the opposite. A world where you're right, where it's all a load of nonsense and we waste our money changing to renewables and trying to impact the Earth's climate when it isn't really needed.
Which is the greater cost? Personally I don't think we should take the risk of the former example, especially when a strong majority (however big that majority is) of scientists believe we are impacting climate. Add to that the fact that lots of doubters have vested interests, and I find the doubters (especially the vocal ones) very frustrating.
I don't like scientific inaccuracies and personally wouldn't knowingly lie about an issue like climate change, but when the press do get things wrong, I can't say as I'm very upset about it. It's all about risk, and the biggest risk is if we do nothing.
If we do act then there will be lots of benefits too: Emissions aren't exactly pleasant and have been shown to cause health problems. The rainforest is one of the most beautiful and diverse environments on our planet, full of potential cures to diseases and ailments. Our reliance on oil is causing all kinds of problems politically and financially. These kinds of benefits would be as far as I'm concerned very positive whatever the truth about climate change, and so I think that whatever your views you should be supporting these kinds of actions.
Glo!