El Niño
A new paper in Nature Climate Change claims that extreme El Niño events are set to double with a warming climate. The ABC reports:
The findings mean not just a rise in the number of devastating droughts and fires in Australia and Indonesia, and major floods in the normally cold and dry Peru and Ecuador, but also a rise in extreme weather events around the world.
“The influence of extreme El Niños reaches every continent,” says Dr Wenju Cai, of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, who is lead author on a new paper published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Cai says the last extreme El Niño in 1997/98 led to 23,000 deaths and $50 billion worth of losses globally.
Under the El Niño weather pattern, the ocean in the eastern Pacific heats up more than normal, bringing more rain to that area and less rain to the western Pacific.
When the warming in the eastern Pacific passes a certain temperature, an extreme El Niño results. This causes extreme droughts in the western Pacific and a 10-fold increase in rain in the eastern equatorial Pacific region.
“Imagine an average of 5 millimetres a day everyday for three months,” says Cai.
To investigate how extreme El Niños would respond to a warming planet in the future, Cai and colleagues aggregated 20 different climate models.
Each model covered a 200-year period between 1891 and 2090, and incorporated measurements of CO2 and other factors, both historical and future, as predicted by the IPCC.
The researchers then compared the historical period 1891-1990 with the period 1991-2090 and found an increase in extreme El Niño events.
“The model is simulating an extreme El Niño event 1 per 20 years from 1891-1990 on average,” says Cai. “But from 1991 to 2090 the model simulates a doubling of the frequency of extreme El Niño events.”
The fact that the modelling of the El Niño events is based on existing climate models means the conclusions drawn should be treated with a heap of caution. With a single model, garbage in equals garbage out, but with two models, it’s garbage in equals garbage-squared out.
Australian Climate Madness 
How can they say that the World Ocean will rise by meters and meters and also say that there will be less rain? Nothing they say goes with the other things that they say, I will pay more attentions top these nut cases when all of them are singing of the same sheet of music. When you look at the complete text of what they say will happen then none of it goes with the rest of it. N
the rise in the world’s oceans are caused by land ice melt not from rain.(as well as water expanding with increased temperatures)
..and some areas will experience more rains, more often while other areas will experience less rain, less often..with a swap in these conditions during El nino , la nina events
The point is with all that extra evaporative surface, and warmer temperatures leading to higher evaporation, it must rain more. Repeat- MUST!
If they haven’t worked that out, what use are they?
An alarmist publication putting out alarmist garbage- that’s news to the ABC. The peddlers of Nature Climate Change wouldn’t have a job, along with a lot of others, if they didn’t have a job in climate alarmism, and the ABC is helping keep them there.
And why should the southern equatorial pacific region heat up faster than the rest of the pacific? According to most alarmists the poles will heat up more than the rest of the world. (Not that that means anything.)
It’s CSIRO again, so suspending disbelief …
“Imagine an average of 5 millimetres a day everyday for three months,” says Cai.”
Er – that’s say 450mm or annual 1800mm. Plenty of places get that and its not an extreme event. Here in NQ there has often been 200mm + in 10 hours. Like in 1998 and 2000. Not so much since.
“To investigate how extreme El Niños would respond to a warming planet in the future, Cai and colleagues aggregated 20 different climate models.”
Uh-oh …
“Each model covered a 200-year period between 1891 and 2090, and incorporated measurements of CO2 and other factors, both historical and future, as predicted by the IPCC.”
That’ll be the CO2 that has now been proven to not cause warming, but also shows no correlation with warming.
And since a mandatory component of all the models is the IPCC ruling on climate sensitivity:
“Criteria for Selecting Climate Scenarios” as stated by IPCC 16 May 2011, Sourced from:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_scen_selection.html
“Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).”
But hey – that IPCC link above no longer works …. Have they changed their tune?
No – it’s still there …
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/scen_selection.html
“Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”). ”
So the same old GIGO at work.
Looks like we might be getting some new alarmist terminology. Extreme El Nino? What about Extreme La Nina? I tend to characterise the Queensland climate over the past 20 odd years as “climate sameness”.
Maybe I’d do better with “Extreme Sameness”?
Simon…these are predictions based on modelling and trends…so of course it is a “wait and see”…we should not presume it is garbage already .
Based on previous models and alarmist theories of ice caps melting, snowfalls decreasing, etc. with no statistical warming in the last 17 years, I’d say it’s a fair bet to presume it’s garbage!
“Simon…these are predictions based on modelling and trends”
Precisely the reason they are met with derision. The trend has been for the models to look more and more like crap.
Doomsday prophesies have had a long history of being wrong. I used to get similar from religious folk who would come to my door. The difference is that I didn’t have to fund their end-time longings.
Oh, seeing that pretty much of everything that they have predicted and prognosticated has turned out to be garbage then I am happy to go with the trend, go with the standard that they have already established, so yes, it’s garbage, and where are you Michael, are you working out how much water there us that is frozen and above the level of the sea, here’s a tip, only consider fresh water, as all ice is that, it’s only fresh water, there is not any frozen salty water, I am just here to help. N
Let’s call a spade a spade … these are predictions based on shite. The ‘models’ are all over the place, chaotic. Refer here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/1/21/the-empty-set.html
A major flaw in Cai’s approach is his aggregation of 20 models. I’m guessing he’s done this, as it adds an appearance of thoroghness and rigour. However, all models contain key assumptions. Key assumptions have to be made due to certain parts of the model not having the requisite data. Basically, this is “invented data” based on personal gut feel. Secondly, the models were then aggregated. This is akin to having data which gives you several “mean average” data points, then adding them all together to get an “overall average” based on the other averages. It results in the production of an “average of averages”, which is never reliable. Finally, the models are hypothetical running to the year 2090. I am 100% certain there is no weather or climate data for tomorrow, let alone 50+ years from now. Given science so frequently disproves itself, (and there is no clearer example of this than climate change science), aggregating 20 models does will not make the model’s output/prediction correct. A flawed approached, inputing flawed science, will only result in one thing…a flawed output.
They talk about that the World Ocean will rise and rise, some morons say that it will rise hundreds of meters, That World famous Oceanographer Peter Garrett say it will rise 11 meters. If you have half a glass of water then to fill it up you have to add water, so are you still with me Micheal? Simple math says that you would need more than 380,000 cubic kilometers of water for each rise of one meter, this does not take into account that the world is not flat, or that in many areas of the World then there would be massive inland flooding for a rise of just one meter, both these items mean that you would likely need over 400,000 cubic kilometers of water or more to be added to the World Ocean for a rise of just one meter, and if you have any trouble thinking about that much water then it would be enough, if it were stacked cubic kilometer on top of cubic kilometer, to go to the moon by submarine, well past the moon in fact, and due to these two things then you would need far more than 400,000 cubic kilometers for a rise of a second meter above the present level of the world ocean so so far we are up to nearly 1 million cubic kilometers of water for a rise of two meters, and far more than 400,000 cubic kilometers for the second meter to get a a third meter, all this water would have to be frozen as ice today and above the present level of the World Ocean, they talk about this rise of the World Ocean when it involves adding millions and millions of cubic kilometers of water, water that does not exist today some does but not that much, The thing is that the frozen areas of the world where this ice would lay is only about less than 5% of the whole planet’s land mass, so all this ice that when it melts then the water released would cover the huge are that is the World Ocean, it would have to be plied up miles into the sky 1 million cubic kilometers of water in one place is a cube 100 miles on each side and the atmosphere is only 9 kilometers thick so 100 divided by 9 means that some where on this frozen planet then there is a pile of ice 9 kilometers high and 330 kilometers on each of the other two sides and that is just for a rise of two meters, so where is that mountain of ice Michael? I have never understood why the real scientists of the World, have not talked about this fact. When the doomsayers are saying that the world ocean will rise by 11 meters and more then where is all that water going to come from? I would love to see an math expert work out how much water that there is that is frozen and above the level of the sea. I had this conversation with one Green moron who told that all of this water is frozen and under the sea, I wept with laughter as I explained to the idiot that the World Ocean would actually fall if the water under the sea level ever melted, he still did not understand that any given amount of water actually takes up more space frozen that it does melted, still you cannot talk to idiots and expect a good conversation. N
n said that you would need Kms. of ice height to raise sea level a few metres.
If as he says the ice are is 5% of the sea are then I think you would only need 20 metres depth of ice melt for every one metre rise of sea level. I think the IPCC predictions of rise are probably about right as they have taken into account the long time it takes for the ice to melt.
I thought the skeptics argument was about “what is causing the heating”, not the effects of heating.
Remember Effects are not Cause,
Ross, sorry that I could not get back to you, I hate quoting Dr Google, but he says that ice above sea level, ‘this means that this ice that sits on land or other near land ice” or in mountain areas, well it sits on just 5% of the area of the World, and of course ice is only frozen fresh water and there is no salt water ice, that 5% actually made sense to me when you look at the rest of the planet, however it also means that any fresh water ice that melted and would raise the level of the World Ocean would have to come from that area, or this 5% area of the world where the frozen fresh water sits and it would have to be piled up there well above the present level of the World Ocean. so that is a relatively small area considering the total area of the planet, and the total area of the World Ocean, The World Ocean, according to Dr Wikipedia, is about 370 million square kilometers, for all this ice to be on such a small area and then melt and spread out over such a large area must meant that it is piled up very high if it will melt and then raise the sea level by the amount that the CAGW believers say the World Ocean will rise, The fact is that if you have half a glass of water and you want to fill it up then you must add water and to raise the level of the world ocean by meters and meters then you must add water. Simple maths says that you need i cubic kilometer of water for each 1000sq kilometers of sea area to raise that area by 1 meter, cut a 1 kilometer cube of water like bread, into 1000×1 meter thick slices and then tile that 1000sq kilometer area with the slices of water and that area goes up by 1 meter, simple math says then that you would need around 370,000 cubic kilometers of water to raise the level of the World Ocean by 1 meter, not including that the World Ocean is not flat and it does not include that there would be massive inland flooding, not at the White Cliff of Dover but many other places, these two unknown quantum’s mean that the 370,000 cubic kilometers of water will not be enough for the first 1 meter rise, and not enough for the second and the amount will exponentially rise, the more I thought about this then the more I realized that you will need massive amounts of water to raise the level of the World Ocean by even two meters, it may be as high as 1,000,000 cubic kilometers, for just 2 meters up, so where is all this water today? Is it really sitting on that 5% area? You seem a smart man to me so prove me wrong, not with smart weasil words but with the science of Mathematics. I set you a challenge, work out how much cubic water that will be needed to raise the level of the World Ocean by three meters and say where that water is today, I will look for your answer. Neville
ps, I don’t really think about the cause of the heating as I doubt that it is actually happening, as every CAGW weather model shows the worse case scenario and none of them are close to each other or to what scientific measurement say is really happening, I am totally talking about the question that I set for you, how much water will be needed to be added to the World Ocean to raise it three meters and where is that water today, accept this challenge or don’t accept it but don’t come back with CAGW rhetoric, you have a mind so use it.
SO Cai and colleagues aggregated 20 different climate models……
Translated this says Cai and colleagues dropped 20 turds into a blender and created one big turd.
Has this been rear previewed by any chance?
What a bunch of arseholes.
Where’s that accursed “like” button when you really need it?
Kudos to Dr Wenju Cai for avoiding the weasel words “could” and “might.” Instead s/he comes right out and says it WILL happen.
She must be in line for a grant and she does not want her benefactors to think that she is sitting on the fence, Whahahahahahaha.N
“Imagine an average of 5 millimetres a day everyday for three months,” says Cai.
That’s a total of 18 inches (1.5 feet) over 3 months. Isn’t the Eastern Equatorial Pacific primarily TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS, anyway? Depending on the month, their rainfall can range from about 8 to 14 feet of rain per year.
What’s the big deal?
“the normally cold and dry Peru and Ecuador” Cold??
Ecuador = Equator in English, that menagerie lion round the middle of the earth.
Northern Peru is very hot desert between the ocean and the mountains and jungle behind the mountains, the desert would welcome any rainfall at all.
Alan Global Warming is a lie and it will be called the ‘greatest con of all time’, I hope that me saying that gets the ball rolling, All they have is that they grab any little news story that can be spun into something that helps their case and lets then say ‘see we told you we were correct’ thie thing is that all these little stories don’t agree with he facts or each other, that does not worry them a bit as all they are doing is keeping up the scare, pathetic really. N
WUWT tells us that Trenberth disagrees with Cai. Are we going to start seeing Warmists eat each other?
RoHa we can only hope that they do as a few less warmists will be a lot less hot air, the thing that they won’t like is that they will have to eat each other raw, as cooking with fossil fuels is bad, N
Isn’t that what they’ve been doing, “eat each other” ?
Try this
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-scientific-method-agw-falsified.html
a good read. N