There are meteorologists who are already comparing El Niño of 2027 with that of 1877, a catastrophic event that wiped out 4% of the population
We have been worried about El Niño for weeks and rightly so. One by one, the main weather forecasters have been warning us that curves are coming. It is true that on April 24, 2026, the World Meteorological Organization refused to call it “super”, but its refusal is purely terminological: what is clear is that everything indicates that “it could be strong or very strong.” Even Ryan Maue, one of the most controversial meteorologists of the moment (for his criticism of “climate alarmism”), has become nervous and has linked what is coming directly to the El Niño of 1877-78. That event wiped out 4% of the planet’s population. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves and remember what El Niño is. By ‘El Niño’ we refer to a cyclical (although very irregular) climate phenomenon that has great effects on the global climate. Huge, in fact. If we exclude the stations, it is the most important source of annual climate variability from all over the planet. During the warm phase (that is, during El Niño), the absence of strong trade winds that cool the surface of the equatorial Pacific causes the temperature of that area of the ocean to skyrocket. It is this, through different atmospheric teleconnectionswhich disrupts all the weather systems in the world. The effects are varied and change depending on the region (“drier conditions than normal in certain parts of the world; while in others it causes more precipitation. Some countries have to deal with major droughts and others with torrential rains”, says AEMET); But when we talk about temperatures there is no doubt: El Niño is synonymous with heat and, in many places in the world, hunger. That’s what happened in 1877. According to modern reconstructionsEl Niño of 1877-78 was the most intense since 1850: sea surface temperatures remained high for 16 months and, as if that were not enough, that coincided with two warm phenomena (in the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic). That triggered a drought of unusual magnitude. However, the 4% figure is problematic. Not because it’s not realbut because (firstly) it corresponds to a longer period that begins in 1877, but lasts until 1902. And, secondly, because the demographic catastrophe was not a direct effect of the climate, but the result of colonial policies: in many areas of the world they were forced to export grain to the metropolises despite famines. In this sense, transferring the mortality figures from that year to today (even if El Niño reached a similar intensity) is not serious. Although it can be expensive. We must not forget that the super El Niño of 97-98, one of the strongest ENSOs in recent years, caused numerous consequences that lasted for years: the estimates say which caused damage to global economic growth of around 5.7 trillion dollars. That is, we are not talking about an episode from 100 years ago, but something that happened 30 years ago and that draws the framework in which state policies have to work. Above all, because although Spain is not in the first row, the consequences can be global. We are no longer talking about diffuse teleconnections (more rain in some areas), we are talking about enormous economic pressure in international markets that have been having a hard time for years. Nobody is very clear what is going to happen, but we do know that we have to prepare for it. Image | Xataka In Xataka | “It is so extreme that it is difficult to believe”: El Niño forecasts depict an event of unprecedented intensity.
