El Niño 2014: Climate alarmists disappointed

Earth.Nullschool.Net: Super typhoon Neoguri crosses paths with El Niño 2014

Austin, Tx., July 11, 2014 — Climate alarmists hoping for a super-El Niño this fall and winter to jolt global warming back into high gear again are likely going to be sadly disappointed.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center released its July monthly El Niño report on July 10. The consensus probability for El Niño conditions in the Northern Hemisphere remained unchanged, but indicators of the strength of the El Niño have weakened considerably since last month. Earth, though, still remains under “El Niño Watch”.

Forecasters now predict that El Niño 2014 “will peak at weak-to-moderate strength during the late fall and early winter”. The report says, “chances of a strong El Niño are not favored” in the models.

Fears of a catastrophic super-El Niño are gone.

Super typhoon Neoguri effects

Earth.Nullschool.Net: Super typhoon Neoguri intensified east blowing trade winds, perhaps further weakened El Niño 2014
Earth.Nullschool.Net: Super typhoon Neoguri intensified east blowing trade winds affecting El Niño 2014

It’s pure speculation and probably will have no effect, but super typhoon Neoguri may have sapped some of the energy from El Niño over the 10 days when it swept across the western equatorial Pacific where El Niños spawn.

Neoguri drew heat from the ocean and intensified east blowing trade winds. Both effects are temporary, but could further weaken El Niño 2014.

As of today, there is no hint of trade wind reversal showing up yet. The reversal of trade winds is one of the main drivers of El Niño that wreaks climate altering havoc. Tropical storm nine is now forming in the western Pacific and further drawing trade winds eastward in the normal counter-El Niño direction.

El Niño strength indicators deteriorate

NOAA El Niño (ENSO) Report/June-July 2014:Upper ocean heat has decreased considerably in the last month
NOAA El Niño (ENSO) Report/June-July 2014:Upper ocean heat has decreased considerably in the last month

A number of El Niño indicators have declined in the last month.

According to this month’s report, “weakening (is) evident near the International Date Line”. The Nino-4 index decreased to +0.3°C. Subsurface heat content between 180º-100ºW has decreased substantially since late March 2014 and is now back near average (Fig. 3).

The all-important Niño-3.4 index, which defines an El Niño event, remains at +0.4°C. That’s just below El Niño strength.

All these things affect El Niño climate modeling and forecasts.

Climate Model Changes

NOAA El Niño (ENSO) Report/June-July 2014: Model forecasts now show weaker El Niño for 2014
NOAA El Niño (ENSO) Report/June-July 2014: Model forecasts now show weaker El Niño for 2014

The latest empirical data input into the models this month show a downward curl that was only hinted at last month. All this indicates a much weaker event than feared in April.


July’s El Niño update report from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is very good news. April fears of a strong super-El Niño have evaporated. The forecast now calls for a weak to normal event. According to modeling, the Niño-3.4 index won’t get much higher than it already is.

However, this is bad news for hard core climate alarmists. The theory of anthropomorphic (human-caused) global warming is falling on hard times. It has been over 15 years since there has been any statistically significant global warming despite that CO2 emissions have accelerated during that time and now top 400 ppm.

Climate alarmists are becoming increasingly anxious for global warming to resume. They are looking for something, anything, to kick start warming again and have been counting on a strong El Niño this year to do the trick.

It’s not looking like El Niño 2014 will help out alarmist thinkers very much this year after all.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • billgannon

    “Climate alarmists hoping for a super-El Niño this fall and winter to jolt global warming back into high gear again.” I love it when every so often, the truth comes out. These same people claim CO2 is the dial for heat, now they have admitted that the oceans play a bigger role.

    • Steve Davidson

      It is particularly interesting because, in the case of El Niño, AGW theorists are depending on natural variability rather than CO2 to be the trigger for more global warming.

    • Balanced

      The role of the oceans has not been underestimated. It’s central. Always has been. A cubic metre of water holds 4,200 times as much energy as a cubic metre of air. The fact that the oceans are central to climate science is as obvious as the fact that hot air rises. Nothings been missed. It’s too obvious.

      What is missing unfortunately is 200 years of high res data from ocean floor to atmosphere top. Trade winds have a massive impact on heat transfer to/from the ocean – but there is virtually no pre-satellite data and doppler data is only recent. So the long term trends of wind intensity is poorly understood.

      The trade winds appear to be currently in an intense cycle – the current thinking is that ocean warming will continue apace but atmospheric warming will remain low until the wind intensity falls again, and the rate of heat transfer to the ocean is reduced, again.

      • Steve Davidson

        Where did you get the idea that “trade winds appear to be currently in an intense cycle”.

        The trade winds are perfectly normal in direction and vector right now. I just looked. Their reversal in the equatorial Pacific is one of the main features of El Niño and that reversal has not shown up yet.

        It is one of the reasons why NOAA forecasts that El Niño “will peak at weak-to-moderate strength during the late fall and early winter”. Read their report. It is linked above.

        • Balnced

          I’m surprised by your statement; Where did you get the idea that “trade winds appear to be currently in an intense cycle”.

          This is a significant topic in the science currently and it has the support of a significant body of complementary science. Have not yet encountered this topic.

          Google – “trade wind global warming”

          • Steve Davidson

            I’ve done something better – I’m actually monitoring the current trade winds related to El Niño 2014 for myself using available tools. You can see wind patterns anywhere on earth up to as recently as within the last three hours.

            Giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, I Googled your suggestion.

            Here is my discovery: You should stop getting your ‘science’ from “The Guardian”.

          • Balanced

            err. check my links that you have not posted. It’s interesting to note that you have not mentioned the other hit that search gets – science daily – which links directly to a white paper, the journal nature, etc etc

            It’s great that your monitoring he winds yourself. On any topic, I personally tend to seek the advice of those who have spend their entire careers in specialised fields, whether that be cardiology, neurosurgery or atmospheric physics.

            I doubt you’d do backyard cardiology – but for some reason, you seem to have concluded that you will engage in backyard atmospheric physics and outsmart everybody in the field while you’re at it ….

            You have still not addressed the significant and growing body of specialist atmospheric physics work that is pointing to wind intensity affecting the rate of atmospheric warming …

          • Steve Davidson

            It’s not my job to research and prove YOUR claims for you. That’s your job. So far, you aren’t doing a very good job.

            The claim “trade winds appear to be currently in an intense cycle”, like many AGW alarmist claims, lacks a concrete definition and is over-exaggerated. It’s doubtful it adds anything to the current discussion about El Niño 2014.

          • Balanced

            Mmm. I provide a number of links to respected, peer reviewed researchers at the lead researcher organizations, you fail to moderate them and claim I’ve not done my homework.

            You also chose only to reference only the Guardian out of 20 hits above. You dismiss the published formal positions of peak bodies.

            Please try and adhere to the evidence and avoid hubris and obfuscation – neither actually make you right.

            For those that are interested, Google, “matthew england nature climate change trade wind hiatus” – the very first hit is uni NSW press release that provides a link to the one of many papers – in the PEER REVIEWED journal, Nature.

          • Steve Davidson

            Awww… I get it now! I am enlightened.

            AGW alarmists can feel much better knowing that those pesky trade winds, like a giant blowing fan, prevented 0.1-0.2 °C of global warming in 2012 alone and that, according to Matthew et. al. 2014, “rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”

            Those pesky winds must still be blowing in 2014, huh? No warming.

            Do you suppose that is what is retarding El Niño 2014? How many decades do you think those winds will blow before everything breaks loose and we all fry? Won’t all that sequestered heat expand the oceans and accelerate sea level rise to breakneck speeds? Will more CO2 in the oceans heat it even faster?

            Alas, some naive folks thought that global warming stopped 15+ years ago. Nope. Not true. Instead, being the devil that it is, the heat craftily went into hiding in the deep ocean starting in 1998. It’s a powder keg waited there, ready to explode with devastating effect at a moment’s notice, as soon as the trade winds slow. GASP!

            United Nations, please, come save us before it is to late!

  • SuperWittySmitty

    More re-packaging from the silly right wing. After years of denying climate change, now they admit that it exists but that it’s nothing to worry about. If you are truly concerned, like so many educated and qualified people, you are now a “climate alarmist.” If they weren’t so dangerous, the right wing would be a total joke.

    • Steve Davidson

      Alarmist (noun)
      “a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.”

      AGW worrywarts expressing fears over a devastating super El Niño this year is an excellent example of alarmism. The NOAA evidence presented in the above article shows how much the danger has been exaggerated.

      • Balanced

        Alarmist (noun)
        “a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.”

        Given the probabilities set out above and that every single peak body of the planet broadly agrees with the predictions, could you now please, tell us how there is not scientific evidence to support cause for Alarm.

        I put it too you that you use the term “Alarmist’ with a pejorative intent – but the very basis of your claim is unfounded. A 20% chance of a cataclysm, is in actual fact, quite alarming.

        What I will accept however, as I’ve mentioned, that green zealots portraying the cataclysm as a guaranteed outcome – are not helping their own cause.

        • Steve Davidson

          Pejorative (adjective)
          “Having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force”

          Oh yes… I most certainly used the term ‘alarmist’ with “pejorative intent”.

          I’m pleased you saw through my subtle rouse. LOL!!!

          I’ll ignore the meaningless “20% chance of a cataclysm” nonsense.

          • Balanced

            There is not a single peak scientific body on this planet that rejects the proposition that there is a significant chance of a 4-6C warming. There is equally not a peak body on the planet that does not think 4-6C warming will be anything but cataclysmic.

            You can “ignore the meaningless “20% chance of a cataclysm” nonsense” – but you’re right out there in scientific fruitcake land if you do. NASA, JAXA, NOAA, AAS, ESA – all most stridently, disagree with you.

            Better pop on that tinfoil hat.

          • Steve Davidson

            Isn’t the old “her said, she said” argument been overused enough? I recommend relying on actual science and data like was done when writing this article. Do your homework. I did mine.

          • Balanced

            Nope a “it’s not he said, she said” situation. I think like many, you don’t understand the role of the IPCC. It is NOT a research body. It is a panel that aggregates scientific opinion. It spends literally years getting scientists to agree with the statements it makes, and the data it releases.

            It’s the very fact that all these peak bodies have formally agreed to the IPCC position on, warming predictions and impacts. They all FORMALLY agree and have literally signed up to the IPCC position. (I would provide the links to the signed documents – but you don’t post my links).

            So yes. Quite definitely. There is not a single peak scientific body on this planet that rejects the proposition that there is a significant chance of a 4-6C warming. There is equally not a peak body on the planet that does not think 4-6C warming will be anything but cataclysmic.

            That said – and I stress – the cataclysmic outcome is far from definite, but it does have a significant probability.

          • Steve Davidson

            If you want to talk El Niño science, then lets talk science backed with empirical evidence. Don’t just make up undefined terms like “cataclysmic outcome” and spout IPCC platitudes.

            The word “cataclysmic” isn’t in the IPCC’s Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers (SPM) report. The term isn’t used in the U.S. AAAS official statement on climate change either … and may not be used in any official statements by any scientific organizations.

          • Balanced

            Yup, cataclysmic is indeed my word. If you read, rather than just search the section “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group 2” and have a look at the impacts of the upper range temperature outcomes; cataclysmic – is a fair one word description. Extensive destruction of agricultural food bowls, conflicts over the supply of water, dramatic loss of biodiversity etc.

            But again, this is only a significant risk – not the most likely outcome.

          • Steve Davidson

            Readers have profited greatly by your knowledge and deep insights into climate science. Thank you very much for your time.

  • Balanced

    There is not a single peak body – anywhere on this planet that doubts AGW. The Russians, Chinese, Saudis, Germans etc ALL support it. There is not one national academy of science, not one NASA, not one Royal Society that doubts it. It’s a pretty spectacular conspiracy that persists across disciplines, cultures and further defies logic – given that the business case against AGW is far better than one for it. If you were a scientist looking for funding and you could debunk AGW – you’d go and get money from the worlds coal associations and right wing governments. Still there is not one such peak body that has sought the greater funding to debunk AGW.

    The NOAA is one such peak body that supports AGW. Given that all the scientists, in all the peak bodies, must be moronic, evil ghouls – why do you reference their science when you think it suits you? Your logic is broken Steve Davidson.

    • Steve Davidson

      Nowhere in this article did I suggest in any way, shape or form that maistream science doesn’t support AGW theory. It does.

      What I did suggest is that some AGW alarmists were counting on El Niño, a perfectly natural (non human-caused) phenomena, to start up global warming again. I pointed out the latest data and assessment of El Niño 2014 from NOAA itself says this year’s El Niño isn’t going to go ballistic as those alarmists had hoped.

      The science behind NOAA’s assessment is in the article above and a link to the original report is provided. Check it out. If the science is wrong, then NOAA’s report is wrong.

      For the record, the suggestion that Neoguri may impact El Niño 2014 is just pure speculation and did not come from the NOAA report.

      • Balanced

        Unless you intent is to discredit scientists, then one should take care to separate the opinions of unscientific green zealots from scientists. I Don’t know too many scientists that think a super El Nino, will trigger a re-acceleration of atmospheric warming, (ocean warming continues).

        The ’98 el Nino cam right at the end of the last rapid warming phase – it didn not trigger warming.

        On Alarmism; yes there is a 5-10% chance warming will be no worse than now (Geenland will still melt somewhat as it did in MWP), there is a ~2020% chance of 1C warming , 50% of 2-3C and a 20% chance of 4-6C. That latter outcome would indeed be catastrophic. While the green zealots should not portray the catastrophic outcome has the definite outcome – a 20% chance of a catastrophic, should be at least somewhat alarming to any rational individual.

        In sum – there is a 70% chance of warming being at a significantly damaging level – which depending upon where you live – might be quite concerning, maybe even alarming.

        • Steve Davidson

          You are correct, the super El Niño of 1997-98 stopped global warming, not trigger any new warmng. Logic would dictate that would be true again, but that is NOT what Dr. Kevin Trenberth suggests.

          Watch the May 2014 Kevin Trenberth interview referenced above. It confirms what I’ve said here.

          I’m not discrediting nor misrepresenting anyone. I merely report what has been said about El Niño 2014 and what is really happening according to the latest NOAA report this month.

          I’ll reserve judgement on the above meaningless percentage gibberish.

          • Balanced

            ” meaningless percentage gibberish”… Ok so I typoed the 10-20%.

            This “meaning percentage gibberish” is actually the very crux of the whole argument.

            As mentioned, we’d need at least 200 years of hourly data, for temperatures every 100 meters of altitude to the top of the atmosphere across a grid spacing of one kilometer and to the bottom of the ocean as well – to be able to fully describe all the thermal processes on the planet.

            That said – we know heat is being added. the real debate is around the outcome.

            The science does the best it can in the absence of this. There is definitely uncertainty as a result. The IPCC summarises the modeling and recognises that there is a small probability of limited warming, a small probability of catastrophic warming – but a very high probability of significant warming.

          • Steve Davidson

            If the “percentage gibberish” is the crux of your whole argument, then you have no support at all. Real science requires real data to back it up.

          • Balanced

            Err. Maybe start by actually reading and absorbing the IPCC report. What you have just said makes no sense in scientific terms.

            The probabilities have been determined from the known uncertainties.

            “then you have no support at all” – is baseless hubris. See below. Read the IPCC reports. The IPCC is indeed all about the probabilities.

            “21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario using stringent mitigation and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) for their highest”

            The above is statement based on probability. It is statement fully supported by NASA, NOAA et al Go read IPCC, Working Group 1 AR5 Technical Summary. It’s all in there.

          • Steve Davidson

            Again… thanks for your insightful input. Have a nice day.

  • Balanced

    AGW Theorists eh? So they must be some kind of fringe group? Last I checked they were NASA, ESA, JAXA, Royal Society, NOAA – yep a bunch right out there on the scientific fringe….

    • Steve Davidson

      You are correct… AGW theorists include NASA, ESA, JAXA, the Royal Society, NOAA, the IPCC, the AAAS and the list goes on and on and on…

      I didn’t suggest AGW theorists were on the fringe and never even used the word “theorist” in this article.

      • Balanced

        You used “AGW Theorists” in your response to Bill Gannon.

        • Steve Davidson

          Guilty as charged! In a COMMENT I said AGW theorists were depending on a natural phenomena to achieve a result that they and the IPCC attribute entirely to human CO2 influences.

          NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth (nobody would questions his scientific credentials as a credible theorist) was interviewed by Peter Sinclair at length in early May in a two part video interview about El Nino 2014. In the two clips, Trenberth suggested this year’s El Nino could be as big as the 1997-98 super El Nino, may trigger as many western Pacific typhoons as in 1997 and bring as much as 0.2-0.3 degree C increase in temperature.

          You can see the entire interview for yourself by searching for:
          Part 1-
          “The Weekend Wonk: Kevin Trenberth on the Coming El Nino, Part 1”
          Part 2-
          “Kevin Trenberth on El Nino: Part 2 Peter Sinclair”
          It is a two part interview with two video clips. (Part 1 and Part 2)

          There was a revealing comment made at the very end of the 2nd video clip. Both Sinclair and Trenberth joke about burying the interview should Trenberth’s suggestions fail to materialize. They haven’t. Virtually none of the dark suggestions Trenberth makes has come to pass.

          It’s time to bury that interview. lol!!!

          • Balanced


            An intense El Nino would do ALL that and would increase the temp in th year that it occurred. But, It would not necessarily be the trigger for a multi-year re-acceleration of warming, that you’ve being asserting is being claimed.

            Nothing wrong with Trenberth statements. No need to bury. No conspiracy.

          • Steve Davidson

            Get over it. There is NOT going to be a strong El Niño in 2014.

            You obvious don’t understand NOAA’s analysis, this article that outlines NOAA’s analysis, nor anything that Trenberth said in the interview.

            El Niño will be weak, at best. The Niño-3.4 temperature anomolay this month is actually LOWER than it was last month. There is no subsurface heat rising to warm anything right now. Niño-3.4 is what defines an El Niño!!

          • Balanced

            Quit the obfuscation – ranting incoherently does not change the fact that you asserted that the warmists hoped that El Nino would re-start warming, not me. I never mentioned the probability of an intense El Nino this year. Your point is non-sequitur, hence my assertion of incoherent ranting.

            I don’t care whether or not there is an intense El Nino this year. I doesn’t impact the long term. Although, it might impact politics in the short term.

          • Steve Davidson

            Thanks for your input. Your enlightened insights have added greatly to my understanding of AGW alarmist thinking.

  • Andyj

    Hey! those twisters at the Skeptical Science blog promised me billions of a-bombs of stored heat would be released. }:-((