There is a fundamental flaw in your argument: “El Niño is natural” does not mean “its consequences are nothing to worry about.” - And the opening line — “Here we go again” — rather misses the point. – Yes, El Niño is a natural recurring Pacific phenomenon. Nobody disputes that. The question is how exceptional this particular event may be and what happens when an unusually strong natural event occurs on top of a much warmer planet. There is a reason scientists are using terms such as “super El Niño” and comparing this developing event with 1877–78. The 1877–78 El Niño is regarded as one of the most catastrophic El Niño events in the historical record. It was associated with devastating droughts, famine and disease across parts of Asia, Africa and the Americas. In Brazil alone, the WMO records around 500,000 deaths from drought and smallpox during the 1877–78 drought. So when meteorologists say the current event could rival the 1877–78 El Niño, they are not saying “the world is going to end.” They are identifying an exceptionally powerful historical benchmark. This isn't simply some newspaper inventing a scary headline. The Met Office's Adam Scaife has described the developing event as potentially the biggest El Niño for more than a century, with Pacific Sea temperatures potentially exceeding 3°C above normal; something he describes as unheard of in modern climate records. That brings us to another important point you seem to be overlooking. Previous El Niños occurred in a cooler world. - The fact that humanity survived 1982–83, 1997–98 and 2015–16 does not demonstrate that their impacts were trivial, nor does it tell us that a similarly strong event occurring against today's warmer background will have identical consequences. Natural variability and climate change aren't competing explanations. They operate together. El Niño temporarily redistributes heat and changes atmospheric circulation and rainfall patterns. Human-caused warming raises the baseline on which that natural variability operates. The result isn't that climate change “causes” El Niño; it is that the impacts of El Niño occur in a climate that is already substantially warmer than it was during those earlier events. And the historical consequences were hardly trivial. - The strong 2015–16 El Niño was associated with drought, food insecurity and extreme weather across numerous regions. The WMO has noted that severe droughts associated with that El Niño contributed to an increase in global hunger. More recently, the 2023–24 El Niño contributed to severe drought in southern Africa, where cereal yields were substantially below the five-year average. So “the world didn't end” is a particularly weak argument. A climate event doesn't have to end civilisation to cause enormous suffering, economic damage, food insecurity, displacement and deaths. Then there is your claim that this is merely “weather”. - That's another misleading simplification. El Niño is a natural climate oscillation, but its consequences include changes in drought, flooding, agricultural production, water availability, wildfire risk and food security. The WMO itself describes the current developing El Niño as a factor that can increase the risk of extreme weather and stresses the importance of early preparation. And finally, you say: “The sensible response is water management, crop planning and normal preparedness.” Exactly. That isn't an argument against taking the forecast seriously. It is an argument for taking it seriously. If a potentially exceptional El Niño could produce serious drought and water stress, then governments should be planning for that possibility before reservoirs are empty and crops have failed. This is particularly relevant to Thailand. Saying “Thailand may have a tougher dry season” and then dismissing concern about it as clickbait is contradictory. The whole point of seasonal forecasting is to give governments, farmers, water authorities and communities advance warning so they can prepare. You don't have to believe every worst-case forecast will happen, you simply have to understand risk. A 30% probability of a serious consequence isn't a reason to ignore it. It is a reason to prepare proportionately. So no, nobody sensible is claiming: “El Niño is happening, therefore catastrophe is inevitable.” - The actual argument is: El Niño is natural. This particular El Niño may be exceptionally strong. Scientists are comparing it with one of the most extreme El Niño events in the historical record. Its impacts will vary enormously by region. Climate change has raised the background temperature. Forecasts have uncertainty. And therefore sensible governments should prepare for the risks rather than dismissing them as media hysteria. Calling that “alarmism” isn't scepticism. It's simply substituting cynicism for risk assessment.
