40/70 Benchmark

Thing is, just as it likely overdoing the NAO, it could also be overdoing the EPO is we don't pop as large of a GOA as it indicates....which is possible given the residual cool ENSO residue.

No bueno...this is what Kev was getting at....if you're wondering why the EURO is warm despite a big -NAO, this is why.

I think most guidance is too cold, but I expect a better season than 2023, if that makes sense....

The reason that the EURO is warm despite a big -NAO is that the North Pacific Oscillation is pretty deeply negative so there is a real fire house of PAC jet.

While I think that the NAO will average positive in the DJFM mean, I do not expect wall-to-wall +NAO, and there are some signs of some pretty significant blocking in the second half....even EURO has that, though it's probably overdone. Sept:

@mitchnickIf you look at the Pacific right now, then look at the CANSIPS.....the El Nino is very east-based, whereas the CANSIPS has been trending further east with each run, but is still central-based. It's also much too cool with the waters east of Japan. These inconsistencies coupled with the trend of guidance to underestimate the magnitude of ridges over the past decade plus should leave you very skeptical of the CANSIPS trending NORTHWARD with the lower heights, thus constricting the Canadian edge even further to the north.

No, it isn't because the EURO is more accurate in the Pacific THIS YEAR. If you want to say all seasonal guidance should be taken with a grain of salt, I agree....but CANSIPS requires a larger grain.

I think the AO will be negative.....EPO and NAO+ in the seasonal mean.

Great assessment.

That logic so absurd considering how poorly the CANSIPS is doing THIS YEAR in the Pacific.

Seems like this is similar to the 2018 eruption, which had a pretty trivial impact.

My bad, you're right. It seems like it was an eruption of moderate magnitude at best, though. I wouldn't anticipate major impacts. This is what I based that assumption on, which I should have pasted in addition to that chart for added context. How its Current Scale and Potential Rankings Compare Compared to its History: The current eruption has blasted an ash column 15 kilometers (50,000 feet) high into the atmosphere. This height mirrors the paroxysmal 2018 Anak Krakatau eruption, which ultimately released roughly 173,000 metric tons (173 kt) of \(SO_{2}\). If the 2026 eruption sustains this intensity, it could reach similar levels. [1, 2, 3]

No, the last column...2018 is a different eruption.

Doesn't appear as though it will have a major impact: To see how Anak Krakatau's potential output stacks up against historical climate-altering eruptions, see the table below: Volcano / Eruption Event Approximate \(SO_{2}\) Mass Released Global Climate Impact 1991 Mount Pinatubo ~20,000,000 tons Decreased global temperatures by 0.5 °C for 2 years 1883 Krakatau Eruption ~20,000,000 tons of Sulfur Decreased global temperatures by 1.2 °C 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai ~400,000 tons Minimal cooling (dominated by historic water vapor injection) 2018 Anak Krakatau Eruption ~173,000 tons Localized atmospheric/weather effects only Typical Anak Krakatau Daily Output ~190 tons/day No measurable climate impact