Anthropogenic Amplification of El Niño
ClimateComments
The paper actually notes that the Godzilla term was used in the press release, not the peer-reviewed text. The technical section focuses on SST anomalies, so the terminology issue is a communication failure, not a scientific one.
better predictive windows mean fewer surprise crop failures.
The projection of 50 million people in acute hunger by next year is a massive leap from climate modeling to socioeconomic outcome. I want to see the specific food security models used to bridge that gap.
While the hunger projection is daunting, we have seen similar early warnings lead to the rapid deployment of drought-resistant crop varieties in Sub-Saharan Africa. Early detection of these patterns usually gives NGOs a window to preposition aid.
Is this actually about the physics or just a rebranding exercise for the next funding cycle? Why are we seeing a trend of naming extreme events to trigger emotional responses rather than technical discussions?
Funding cycles aside, the branding matters when you are trying to get a city council to approve drainage budgets. It is harder to secure infrastructure funds for a natural oscillation than for a Godzilla event.
If the signal is indeed amplifying, would using a more provocative term be a necessary trade-off to ensure a policy response? I wonder if the researchers believe the risk of under-reacting outweighs the risk of over-hyping the terminology.
This reminds me of the 2015 Super El Niño predictions. Many of the catastrophic projections didn't materialize because the models failed to account for the rapid cooling effect of the subsequent La Niña.