As super El Nino strengthens, study suggests that climate change is intensifying El Ninos

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study suggests that El Ninos — the natural climatic chaos agent that pops up periodically and spikes global temperatures — are getting stronger because of human-caused climate change.

El Ninos are more than 36% stronger than they were before the industrial age began in the mid 1800s, with a 16% jump in just the last 40 years showing that the increase is accelerating, according to a study in Thursday's journal Science. The findings come as a strong El Nino that formed a couple months ago is forecast to be the biggest on record in coming months. El Ninos, which are a temporary warming of parts of the equatorial Pacific, warp weather worldwide and increase extreme events, including heat waves, floods in some places and droughts in others. They can cost trillions in damage.

“That’s important because strong El Ninos have much stronger impacts on climate hazards and extremes worldwide. When we set out to answer the question of why this might be happening, we set our data up against a record of global temperature, and we found that the increase in El Nino’s strength closely parallels the rise in global temperature that is due to human causes such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said study lead author Julia Cole, a paleoclimate scientist at the University of Michigan.

Her study looks back at El Ninos going back 900 years or so.

“El Nino is the most violent aspect of climate variability worldwide, with effects ranging from local fisheries collapse, to widespread coral die-offs to severe droughts and food shortages around the world,” said Dalhousie University marine scientist Boris Worm, who wasn't part of the study.

Worm quoted the late climate scientist Wallace Broecker who warned “the climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.” And then Worm added: “Human emissions are the stick and El Nino is of the ‘angry’ outbursts that can be so threatening to our collective safety.”

An El Nino's strength is determined by measuring water temperature in a region of the central Pacific around the equator and comparing a three-month average to normal. If it's 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal, it's becomes an El Nino. The top of the scale is 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and is called “very strong." The most recent weekly El Nino figure is at 2.7 degrees (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) and is expected to keep growing for another two to four months, according to Columbia University's El Nino tracker.

Scientists have long theorized that as the world warms, El Ninos would get stronger because they are based on ocean temperature differences compared to average. But observational records only goes back about 75 years, so scientists have previously said the data is too spotty for a trend. So scientists have looked for clues that indicate an El Nino without measuring water temperatures directly. Scientists, for example, have looked back at historical records of changes in weather around the world and figured out past El Ninos — such as the super-sized one in 1877 — due to the changes they cause across the globe.

Cole's team took a novel approach by looking at at what happened to coral over the centuries to act as “a time machine to look into the past,” she said. Cole said measurements of the ratio of calcium and strontium in coral skeletons and of different oxygen isotopes create two independent readings of the seawater in which the coral formed. Another measurement of uranium and thorium tell when those skeletons were formed.

Cole looked at 29 coral fossils in the Galapagos Islands — 14 from before the industrial era, 14 after the modern era began and one more from about the time the industrial era was starting up. The oldest was from around year 1100.

The temperatures she derived from the fossils over more than 900 years are patchy, with gaps, but when charted it, she said it looks like a hockey stick, the same description used for a 1990s landmark study of past global temperatures.

She and other scientists say it's only going to get worse.

“It raises the specter of a future where larger El Niño and La Niña events are dialing up the pace and severity of weather and climate extremes.,” said Kim Cobb, a coral and climate scientist at Brown University, who wasn’t part of the study.

Outside scientists are split on the research with some hailing it as important and trustworthy and others saying they don't buy it because it clashes with some recent observations.

“Corals are the gold standard for El Niño reconstruction, and this brings a goldmine of new material to the table,” Cobb said. “We can either wait many many decades for the instrumental record to get long enough to detect a shift in El Niño properties, or we can use centuries of El Niño reconstructions provided by paleoclimate records. Taken together, the paleoclimate data that we have, from across the Pacific, is fairly consistent in pointing to an intensification of El Niño’s with global warming.”

Both University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann — originator of the temperature hockey stick — and University of North Carolina marine scientist John Bruno said that the coral data conflicts with recent observations of water temperature in the Galapagos. Data shows “a substantial decline in recent decades” of El Nino related variations near the Galapagos during the time greenhouse gases increased temperatures the most, Mann said.

What’s being reflected by the coral is not a change in El Nino as much as the warming from greenhouse gases, Bruno said.

Cole said the huge 1997-1998 El Nino and then small ones until 2023-24 created a situation where it seems like El Nino's aren't strengthening because measurements are based on a 20-year time period and there were a few years that fell between super El Ninos that skewed data. She said El Nino varies in strength so much and that up-and-down nature doesn’t go away just because it is responding to warmer conditions.

But the scientists all agreed that climate change is a problem, with or without El Nino worsening.

“It's important to point to this as one more reason why we need to get off fossil fuels,” Cole said. “There isn't a magic bullet that's going to slow El Ninos down.”

——

Julian Trejo Bax contributed from New York.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

FILE - Locals and tourists gather to look at a fishers' catch on a beach in Rongshanliao village on southern China's Hainan province, Aug. 23, 2026. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

FILE - Woodhead reservoir is visible amid a drought near Manchester, England, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Jon Super, File)

FILE - Somali women displaced by drought line up at Feynuus Nutrition Centre on the outskirts of the capital, Mogadishu, Somalia, Aug. 19, 2026. (AP Photo/Farah Abdi Warsameh, File)

FILE - A fish swims through a coral reef in the Dutch Cays of Guna Yala on Panama's Caribbean coast, Aug. 25, 2026. (AP Photo/Matias Delacroix, File)

FILE - A woman uses a fan to cool off while riding a bus on a hot day in Bucharest, Romania, Aug. 6, 2026. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)

The Trump administration relied on flawed logic to justify scrapping vehicle emissions standards this year, making errors in how it accounted for fuel savings, the price of technology and mileage, according to a new study by a group of economists.

Correcting those errors would negate the economic benefits that the administration said would come from eliminating greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and trucks, according to the paper published Thursday in the journal Science.

The Trump administration got rid of the emissions standards earlier this year when it revoked what's known as the endangerment finding, which had long served as the legal underpinning for federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The White House touted the move as a prudent deregulatory action that would produce massive savings for consumers, mostly from reduced costs for new vehicles. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis estimated that rescinding the greenhouse gas standards would save Americans $600 to $790 billion in the coming decades.

The administration is currently facing legal action over its repeal of the finding.

But the group of a dozen researchers who examined the EPA's cost-benefit analysis said that correcting the administration's errors would “overturn” its justification. The authors — who were from universities including Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania — found that eliminating the standards will actually cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars.

"This is deeper than just a discussion as to whether an administration should value greenhouse gas emissions reductions or not,” said Antonio Bento, one of the analysis authors, and a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Southern California. Even setting aside the environmental debate, “the economic case for the rollback of the standards still falls apart.”

The Trump administration's cost-benefit analysis supporting its rollback of the vehicle rules said savings would come from consumer choice, vehicle affordability and industry flexibility.

But the researchers say correcting several errors in the analysis — related to how consumers value savings at the gas pump, the price of technology and mileage — would actually decrease that estimated benefit by $1.5 trillion, meaning that eliminating the rules will actually cost the country $670 billion.

The authors of the study say that the EPA analysis credits car buyers with receiving only $0.23 out of every $1 of fuel savings, which they argue wrongly leaves out billions of dollars in benefits from vehicle emissions standards.

Describing other costly errors in the government analysis, the authors also say the EPA — under both the Trump and Biden administrations — made faulty assumptions about how long it takes for fuel savings to offset upfront costs of purchasing vehicles.

The study authors faulted how the EPA accounted for how efficiency improvements affect vehicle cost, as well as how gas prices influence driver behavior.

“When you rollback the standards, you’re basically forcing consumers to having higher fuel costs than they otherwise would have if they were to buy cleaner cars,” Bento said. “And so the administration is not protecting consumers. The administration is actually not protecting carmakers either. That’s a much concerning implication of this study.”

The EPA said in an email statement that it stands by its economic analysis.

“We will not attempt to push an EV mandate on the American people based on facially implausible projections. If Americans want to buy EVs, they are free to do so, but the Trump EPA is restoring that choice to the American people where it belongs,” the statement said. “The Agency used established models and updated assumptions reflecting significant changes since the 2024 vehicle rules, including changes in consumer demand for EVs, fuel-price projections, and other market conditions.”

The researchers also say the EPA did not include the economic value of key environmental benefits fostered by the emissions standards, such as reduced pollution.

An outside scholar said the researchers did a good job of demonstrating that flaws in the EPA analysis undercut the agency's arguments about savings.

“They pretty effectively proved that the rollback is really based on several fundamental flaws, and any one of these mistakes alone is enough to change the sign of the cost benefit analysis and show that this is a bad deal, not just for the environment, but a bad deal for drivers,” said Jason Schwartz, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.

Schwartz, who was not involved in the study published in Science, said the research could go even further, to point to the second-order effects of having efficiency technologies in vehicles — not just fuel savings, but also added safety in having lighter weight materials, for example.

As far as the environmental cost, “It’s also helpful to remember that behind that number are real consequences to real people, including thousands of U.S. lives that are going to be at stake over the next century because of the increased emissions from vehicles,” Schwartz said.

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

Read more of AP’s climate coverage.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

FILE - Gas is topped off after filling up a vehicle's fuel tank in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, Texas, May 6, 2026. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

FILE - Traffic moves along Interstate 76 ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend in Philadelphia, May 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)