The 2015 El Niño and some super-hype from a couple of niños in the Grauniad

I've taken an unannounced break from blogging; the reasons I won't bore you with. I've decided to restart with a post about the current El Niño. First an update of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).

SOI 1990 - Aug 2015 (Source data BOM)        Click to enlarge

As you can see, the index has dropped from a high in 2010/11 into a strong El Niño (data to Aug 2015). However, there's some doubt as to the likely duration and strength. A couple of people are quite certain, however, as in this Guardian article. Please read it - it's either going to make you laugh (as I did) or cry, or both.

El Niño: a global weather event that may save California — and destroy the tropics 

The last time a really large El Niño occurred was during the Northern Hemisphere’s winter of 1997-98. Droughts, floods and outbreaks of infectious diseases plagued villages across Africa. Floods inundated Peru. Megafires rampaged through Indonesia. Fisheries collapsed off the coast of South America. Crops failed across much of the tropics and global food prices rose. Civil conflicts broke out in Africa and Asia.

Today, in all likelihood, we stand about a month away from another major El Niño. Current state-of-the-art forecasts tell us that an event similar to 1997-98 is likely to return this winter. Our own research on the human toll of El Niño suggests that households in the tropics will begin to feel the heat as early as September.

Do those linked forecasts tell us "that an event similar to 1997-98 is likely to return this winter"? No they don't - they don't mention 1997-98 anywhere, because they're forecasts, which are predicting a strong El Niño. The authors are hyping it up - to forecast doom and gloom, death and destruction, floods, drought and pestilence (I added in the pestilence myself - what's sauce for the goose....), and "the destruction of the tropics" apparently. Last time I heard, the tropics were still there after the 1997-8 El Niño, though a little frayed round the edges in one or two places.

Who are the authors of this apocalyptic treatise? They are Kyle Meng, who is "assistant professor in the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and in the Department of Economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.", and Solomon Hsiang is "associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He coauthored Economic Risks of Climate Change (just published) the analysis behind the Risky Business report by Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson & Thomas Steyer.".

Not climate scientists, nor meteorologists, but economists. Economists who actually understand less about El Niño and its effects and consequences than I do. Not only that, they manage to contradict themselves in their lurid and doom-laden article. Read it and spot the contradictions for yourself. An El Niño creates weather and climate disparities in the Pacific both east-west and north-south, and not just in the tropics, as these two economists-with-an-agenda would have us believe. Their linked forecasts (do they want us to actually read them? I did, most won't) make those disparities in temperature and precipitation quite clear.

Try this quote for a schoolboy howler "The fundamental physics of El Niño and its unequal effects have been around as long as civilization.". Really? and I, in my ignorance thought that the causes and effects were only recognised in the late 20th. century, and only begun to be fully understood as a result of the intensive recording and study of the 1997-8 event. You really are a couple of niños (Spanish for kids, children) aren't you? Stick to economics, guys, you may even be able to make a living out of it.

All of a Flutter in the Tropics

"Global warming threatens tropical birds" says Bob Berwyn, who's editor and apparently the only "journalist" on the Summit County Voice.

Global warming is likely to drive hundreds of bird species to extinction in coming decades, as more intense and frequent extreme weather events destroy habitat and make foraging impossible.

“Birds are perfect canaries in the coal mine – it’s hard to avoid that metaphor – for showing the effects of global change on the world’s ecosystems and the people who depend on those ecosystems,” said Çağan Şekercioğlu , an assistant professor of biology at the University of Utah.

Other sites used identical wording, with more or less detail, suggesting a press release, which none cited, or the version on EurekAlert, which is the most detailed:

Scenarios for Extinction

A 2008 study by Şekercioğlu and late climatologist Stephen Schneider calculated 60 scenarios of how tropical land bird extinction rates will be affected by various possible combinations of three variables: climate change, habitat loss and how easily birds can shift their range, meaning move to new habitat. Citing those estimates, the new review paper says that "depending on the amount of habitat loss, each degree of surface warming can lead to approximately 100 to 500 additional bird extinctions."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming of the Earth's surface by the year 2100, which Şekercioğlu's study converted into a best case of about 100 land bird extinctions and a worst case of 2,500.

He says the most likely case now is considered to be 3.5 C (6.3 F) warming by 2100, resulting in about 600 to 900 land bird species going extinct. These estimates are conservative because they exclude water birds, which are 14 percent of all bird species.

Because they don't travel far, "sedentary" birds "are five times more likely to go extinct in the 21st century than are long-distance migratory birds," says Şekercioğlu.

My first observation is that the cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also predicted that warming would be less in the tropics, so any climate modelling based on the tropics should take that into account. Apparently this modelling exercise (for that, of course, is what it is) did not, a significant error. I suggest you read the EurekAlert article, if you're interested in doom and gloom. My second observation is that these and many other articles equate "global warming" and "climate change", and use them interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Climate consists of a lot more than temperature.

I responded to Mr. Berwyn's article before I'd spotted the error with "projected" temperature increases, quoting and commenting on the article thus:

"Climate change already has caused some low-elevation birds to shift their ranges, either poleward or to higher elevations, causing problems for other species"

Wouldn't the "other species" have moved "either poleward or to higher elevations" also? Birds and other species have been moving poleward and to higher elevations since the end of the last ice age.

"Birds with slower metabolisms often live in cooler tropical environments with relatively little temperature variation. They can withstand a narrower range of temperature and are more vulnerable to climate change"

So? This paper says explicitly that birds relocate to suit the conditions. There's nothing to suggest the "cooler tropical environments" wouldn't move poleward somewhat and the birds with them, nor that the "little temperature variation" would alter.

"Tropical mountain birds are among the most vulnerable to climate change. Warmer temperatures at lower elevations force them to higher elevations where there is less or no habitat, so some highland species may go extinct"

We're frequently told that plants, including trees, are moving higher with increasing temperatures. I would equate "plants, including trees" and suitable temperatures with habitat.

"Climate change and accompanying sea-level rise pose problems for birds in tropical coastal and island ecosystems, “which are disappearing at a rapid rate,” Şekercioğlu and colleagues write"

What rapid rate? What island ecosystems?

"Birds in extensive lowland forests with few mountains – areas such as the Amazon and Congo basins – may have trouble relocating far or high enough to survive"

Birds worldwide migrate thousands of miles each year but can't manage to move their nesting sites a few miles a decade?

"Rising sea levels will threaten aquatic birds such as waders, ducks and geese, yet they often are hemmed in by cities and farms with no place to go for new habitat"

Most aquatic birds nest and feed far away from cities and farms. There aren't many of either on estuary mudflats. cliffs and rocky islands.

"Tropical birds in arid zones are assumed to be resilient to hot, dry conditions, yet climate change may test their resilience by drying out oases on which they depend"

May.