Here’s something the alarmist warmists can put in their pipes and smoke.
A new paper titled El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability from the Late Cretaceous Marca Shale of California authored by Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, and John A. Barron shows that a permanent El Nino did not exist during that particular greenhouse episode.
The latest Cretaceous laminated Marca Shale of California permits a seasonal-scale reconstruction of water column flux events and hence interannual paleoclimate variability. The paper’s abstract continues (emphasis added):
Time series analysis of interannual variability in terrigenous sediment and diatom flux and in the degree of bioturbation indicates strong periodicities in the quasi-biennial (2.1–2.8 yr) and lowfrequency (4.1–6.3 yr) bands both characteristic of ENSO forcing, as well as decadal frequencies. This evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability does not support the theory of a “permanent El Niño,” in the sense of a continual El Niño–like state, in periods of warmer climate.”
In the paper’s conclusion we find:
There is therefore little support for the existence of a ‘permanent El Niño’ in the Late Cretaceous, in the sense of the continual El Niño state depicted by Fedorov et al. (2006). […] there was robust ENSO variability in past “greenhouse” episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state.”
This is not the first paper to suggest that. You can read about an earlier paper here.
So much for the scare that the CO2 emitted by man would propel the planet into a permanent El Nino burn-up, as Ray Pierrehumbert and climate models suggested here at RealCrock:
How will the El Niño phenomenon be affected by a global warming?
…how ENSO will respond to a global warming is still not settled. However, it seems that one common trait among some climate models is the indication that a global warming may result in a more a general El Niño-type average state (eg. Collins et al. 2005, Climate Dynamics, 24, 89-104. 19 and here).”
So much for “settled science”.
H/t: Dr Ghana