The_Global_Warmer Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Agreed....so much less than 97 at this time, 1/2 less. And with anomolies higher in 3.4 and with the spike in region 4 shows what a bw event this is and so not like 98. Thanks for pointing that out, again and again and again. I have said nothing about 1997. So yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB GFI Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Impressive. Look man , I am not picking on you but here me out . You have been telling us for 6 weeks that 1.2 when it was at 2.8 it was going to go ballistic it then proceeded to go to 2.7 - 2.5 - 2.2 then 2.3 . You are long this region at 2.8 , not 2.2 . Not impressive . If one of my traders bought a stock at 28 an we watched it go to 22 as the trader justified it`s ownership all the way down and then yelled " impressive" at 23 I am not sure what my natural reaction would be . Conversely while you have been holding onto a bad position everything else was just taking off . ( As we have been opining about here daily ) . I am just not sure why/how you have missed the explosion in 3 3.4 4 . Compliments of 126 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The long term trends have been more favorable for Nino 4 records than in 1+2. Nino 4 has experienced a steady warming trend while 1+2 has not. Nino 4 updated through present Nino1+2 through 2014 Nino 4 SST's Oct Nino 1+2 SST's Oct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 That long term nino 4 trend is impressive. The trades along the SA coast weaken and go calm then slightly reverse. Sub surface shows 8C+ now and the thermocline continuing to reflatten. CFS shows another WWB the furthest East of the event in mid November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 it doesn't have to be exactly like 98 to be a warm winter with below average snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 it doesn't have to be exactly like 98 to be a warm winter with below average snow so I assume that you're saying it's going to be a below average snowfall and above average temperature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnionWeatherWx Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 it doesn't have to be exactly like 98 to be a warm winter with below average snow PB pointed that out several times already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB GFI Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Monster . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClicheVortex2014 Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Monster . I can't wait for next week's SSTA update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 SST CA seasonal model remains virtually unchanged with its recent update. It suggests favorable tropical forcing, and the mean GOAK low position similar to basin wide years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman19 Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 The Monday morning update could be ridiculous for region 3.4. Tropical tidbits has it as +2.82 today and it always runs cooler than OISST. The Euro had been insistant for months that it hits +3.0C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 it doesn't have to be exactly like 98 to be a warm winter with below average snow It also doesn't have to be that much different to be an above normal snowfall winter either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 SST CA seasonal model remains virtually unchanged with its recent update. It suggests favorable tropical forcing, and the mean GOAK low position similar to basin wide years. Isotherm what is the track record of that model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 from Wei Shi at NOAA...doesn't answer my question...but not going to take ERSST too seriously when OISST is superior and has 97 and 15 running neck and neck Hi,The OISST and ERSST are two different datasets and they have different norms. Discrepancy between the two estimates always exists. We recommend that they should not be compared. One should only compare *within* the dataset (to other years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 from Wei Shi at NOAA...doesn't answer my question...but not going to take ERSST too seriously when OISST is superior and has 97 and 15 running neck and neck Hi, The OISST and ERSST are two different datasets and they have different norms. Discrepancy between the two estimates always exists. We recommend that they should not be compared. One should only compare *within* the dataset (to other years). I'm not sure what the problem is with having two different datasets. As long as an apples to apples comparison is made, there shouldn't be any issue. Why do you think OISST is superior? I'm of the opinion that 1997 was clearly a stronger El Nino than this one, up to the present point. The westerly wind bursts were much more frequent and extensive further east in the tropical Pacific, thus resulting in the anomalous region 1+2 values. Typically, the super Nino's like 1982 and 1997 are very warm in region 1+2 due to the impressively robust westerly wind bursts and strong kelvin waves. This ENSO event has been exceptionally potent to date, but the WWB's have not been as durable east of 140W. Also, the MEI in 1997 peaked at +3.049, while this event peaked at +2.527, and is already on the downward slope. As far as the trimonthly peak of this event, I still favor 1.9c-2.0c for the official ERSST. In order to achieve 2.0c on the next trimonthly update [sON], we're going to need a November ERSST region 3.4 value of approximately +2.3c. Converting from OISST, this implicates that the next several weekly values must be at least +2.8c. Hypothetically, if we were to achieve a +2.3c ERSST for November, a maintenance of those anomalies, say +2.2c for December, would bring the trimonthly up to 2.1c. I think it's going to be very difficult to increase the official trimonthly peak beyond 2.1c, especially since we're not as intense further east relative to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I'm not sure what the problem is with having two different datasets. As long as an apples to apples comparison is made, there shouldn't be any issue. Why do you think OISST is superior? I'm of the opinion that 1997 was clearly a stronger El Nino than this one, up to the present point. The westerly wind bursts were much more frequent and extensive further east in the tropical Pacific, thus resulting in the anomalous region 1+2 values. Typically, the super Nino's like 1982 and 1997 are very warm in region 1+2 due to the impressively robust westerly wind bursts and strong kelvin waves. This ENSO event has been exceptionally potent to date, but the WWB's have not been as durable east of 140W. As far as the trimonthly peak of this event, I still favor 1.9c-2.0c for the official ERSST. In order to achieve 2.0c on the next trimonthly update [sON], we're going to need a November ERSST region 3.4 value of approximately +2.3c. Converting from OISST, this implicates that the next several weekly values must be at least +2.8c. Hypothetically, if we were to achieve a +2.3c ERSST for November, a maintenance of those anomalies, say +2.2c for December, would bring the trimonthly up to 2.1c. I think it's going to be very difficult to increase the official trimonthly peak beyond 2.1c, especially since we're not as intense further east relative to normal. The difference between the weekly and official monthly seasonal values is huge. It was not in previous nino events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Official is 1.85c for october, even though other sst analysis has been well over 2c during the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysready126 Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I just have to say this.... When there were indications of a "Super Nino," it seems like everyone who is on the Climate Change bandwagon saw the event as an opportunity to reiterate their position. Having said that, I feel climate change is real and that we need to take steps to try to correct the problem through methods that probably aren't acceptable to many people who advocate to take those very steps. WIth this in mind, people need to look at the numbers and stop trying to create something that isn't there. This seems by all current indications to be a basin wide, strong event..... nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 The difference between the weekly and official monthly seasonal values is huge. It was not in previous nino events. Yes, but as long as one dataset is consistently utilized for the official values, retrospectively, I don't see the issue (i.e., OISST used for 1997, but now ERSST used for 2015 -- as long as that isn't the case). BTW, the OISST dataset had a trimonthly peak of +2.63c for 1997, which will likely be very difficult to attain with this event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Yes, but as long as one dataset is consistently utilized for the official values, retrospectively, I don't see the issue (i.e., OISST used for 1997, but now ERSST used for 2015 -- as long as that isn't the case). BTW, the OISST dataset had a trimonthly peak of +2.63c for 1997, which will likely be very difficult to attain with this event. The current week is tied with 1997s weekly peak of 29.4c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman19 Posted November 5, 2015 Author Share Posted November 5, 2015 I'm not sure what the problem is with having two different datasets. As long as an apples to apples comparison is made, there shouldn't be any issue. Why do you think OISST is superior? I'm of the opinion that 1997 was clearly a stronger El Nino than this one, up to the present point. The westerly wind bursts were much more frequent and extensive further east in the tropical Pacific, thus resulting in the anomalous region 1+2 values. Typically, the super Nino's like 1982 and 1997 are very warm in region 1+2 due to the impressively robust westerly wind bursts and strong kelvin waves. This ENSO event has been exceptionally potent to date, but the WWB's have not been as durable east of 140W. Also, the MEI in 1997 peaked at +3.049, while this event peaked at +2.527, and is already on the downward slope. As far as the trimonthly peak of this event, I still favor 1.9c-2.0c for the official ERSST. In order to achieve 2.0c on the next trimonthly update [sON], we're going to need a November ERSST region 3.4 value of approximately +2.3c. Converting from OISST, this implicates that the next several weekly values must be at least +2.8c. Hypothetically, if we were to achieve a +2.3c ERSST for November, a maintenance of those anomalies, say +2.2c for December, would bring the trimonthly up to 2.1c. I think it's going to be very difficult to increase the official trimonthly peak beyond 2.1c, especially since we're not as intense further east relative to normal. The latest values have region 3.4 over +2.8C, Monday's weekly update will almost certainly show it at least that if not higher. We have achieved something in the first week of November that 1997 didn't achieve until the last week of this month, either way this Nino has been extremely impressive and historic. It definitely earned its place in the weather history books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I'm not sure what the problem is with having two different datasets. As long as an apples to apples comparison is made, there shouldn't be any issue. Why do you think OISST is superior? I'm of the opinion that 1997 was clearly a stronger El Nino than this one, up to the present point. The westerly wind bursts were much more frequent and extensive further east in the tropical Pacific, thus resulting in the anomalous region 1+2 values. Typically, the super Nino's like 1982 and 1997 are very warm in region 1+2 due to the impressively robust westerly wind bursts and strong kelvin waves. This ENSO event has been exceptionally potent to date, but the WWB's have not been as durable east of 140W. Also, the MEI in 1997 peaked at +3.049, while this event peaked at +2.527, and is already on the downward slope. As far as the trimonthly peak of this event, I still favor 1.9c-2.0c for the official ERSST. In order to achieve 2.0c on the next trimonthly update [sON], we're going to need a November ERSST region 3.4 value of approximately +2.3c. Converting from OISST, this implicates that the next several weekly values must be at least +2.8c. Hypothetically, if we were to achieve a +2.3c ERSST for November, a maintenance of those anomalies, say +2.2c for December, would bring the trimonthly up to 2.1c. I think it's going to be very difficult to increase the official trimonthly peak beyond 2.1c, especially since we're not as intense further east relative to normal. The ERSST 3.4 discrepancy is significant and honestly doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it appears the October norm for 1997 and 2015 is the same....1.85 vs 2.24....whereas OISST temps for October are identical.....I am fine with Apples to apples...but the discrepancy simply doesn't make sense....If we are going to become wed to ONI (ERSST), then we shouldn't even be discussing weeklies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsnow Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 It also doesn't have to be that much different to be an above normal snowfall winter either. Great winter outlook this year from you Doug weathergun. Can't wait to read the great info you guys posts this winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The ERSST 3.4 discrepancy is significant and honestly doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it appears the October norm for 1997 and 2015 is the same....1.85 vs 2.24....whereas OISST temps for October are identical.....I am fine with Apples to apples...but the discrepancy simply doesn't make sense....If we are going to become wed to ONI (ERSST), then we shouldn't even be discussing weeklies... I definitely see your point, and I'm not sure why the discrepancy exists. The reason why I reference ERSST is because: [A] It is the dataset utilized for the official stratification of ENSO events [weak/moderate/strong], and we need an objective standard by which our forecasts can be measured. If the previous ENSO events were categorized / recorded using ERSST, then it would make sense to continue using it / base forecasts on the peak of that dataset. Why is CPC utilizing the ERSST dataset for the official ONI rather than OISST? There must be a reason for this; do they feel ERSST has greater utility? What we can agree on is that one of the strongest Nino's in recorded history is ongoing; whether it makes strongest officially as per CPC isn't particularly relevant insofar as the sensible weather impacts anyway. Should be interesting to see the level at which each dataset peaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 The latest values have region 3.4 over +2.8C, Monday's weekly update will almost certainly show it at least that if not higher. We have achieved something in the first week of November that 1997 didn't achieve until the last week of this month, either way this Nino has been extremely impressive and historic. It definitely earned its place in the weather history books... I agree it's definitely extremely impressive. Though, we also must remember that the 1997 event initiated significantly later than 2015, and thus the numbers we're seeing right now are unlikely to maintain over the next 2-3 months, like the 1997-98 event did. The peak - almost certainly - will be occurring earlier. While we will still be very potent throughout the winter, the timing is different than 1997 by 1-2 months probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Historic basin wide super nino to continue to grow. With unprecedented nino 4 and nino 3-4 anomalies. With a very real chance of enso 12, 3, and 34 all being over 3.0C+ at the same time while enso 4 is near 2.0C. Id bet nino 1-2 will flat line and maybe slightly drop the next few days. Then assuming the current modeled forecast is right and the cpc idea of the most Eastern WWB in the event so far in mid November we will see enso 1-2 peak in late November or early December. The latest CFS forecast showing another WWB in about 10 days. The current gfs forecast shows a broad area of positive anomalies from the dateline to SA. But the strongest are by far from about 125W to the SA coast. The sub surface chart shows very very well the impact the splitting winds are having near the dateline. The trades strengthening West of the dateline is pushing Warmer surface water from a region seeing ample sunlight Westward back towards the West PAC and the Western side of Enso 4. While in combo with previous Kelvin waves weakening trades East of there is still pushing the warm blob East helping fuel the recent blow up over enso 1-2. The sub surface warm pool is very deep and warm. So this situation could sustain itself for a while giving us an unprecedented basin wide nino. Which is essentially allowing a monstrous amount of stored OHC to be released into the lower troposphere at once. Enjoy being a witness to what is most likely the strongest nino of our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClicheVortex2014 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Not enough sensationalism in that post, please do elaborate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 It's not sensationalizing. Enso 4 is where the warmest waters are. More convection equals more evaporation. Wild times coming. The change the past week under this wind regime has been incredible. How freaking warm will enso 4 get? The models show the trades pushing heat West through at least mid November. Obviously there is an anomaly limit in comparison with the far East Pacific. The most recent ssta update shows pretty much all of enso 4 is at or above 0.5C on the graphics above which is based on 1971-2010 climo. Even adjusting for that half of enso 4 is now into the main plume of huge ssta. Triton data shows the surface warmth increase. Here is a comparison to 2009 I'm guessing a nino like this would fire off convection over a larger area than normal setting the stage for a loaded STJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utrex Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 If my theory is correct (cold pool nudges warm pool east in the subsurface while intensifying it), the subsurface warm pool will intensify significantly over the coming weeks. I am willing to see how this El Niño blossoms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I definitely see your point, and I'm not sure why the discrepancy exists. The reason why I reference ERSST is because: [A] It is the dataset utilized for the official stratification of ENSO events [weak/moderate/strong], and we need an objective standard by which our forecasts can be measured. If the previous ENSO events were categorized / recorded using ERSST, then it would make sense to continue using it / base forecasts on the peak of that dataset. Why is CPC utilizing the ERSST dataset for the official ONI rather than OISST? There must be a reason for this; do they feel ERSST has greater utility? What we can agree on is that one of the strongest Nino's in recorded history is ongoing; whether it makes strongest officially as per CPC isn't particularly relevant insofar as the sensible weather impacts anyway. Should be interesting to see the level at which each dataset peaks. I believe OISST only goes back to the early 80s....ERSSTv4 goes back to the 1800's...They've also configured it to use running norms to account for the fact that SST's have warmed over the last 100+ years....I am mostly fine with it, though I am not convinced that using climate adjusted norms makes total sense. And the way they configure it seems arbitrary....I understand why they do it. They want to be able to compare the strength of ninos from different eras. But it is still a lot of guesswork....I'm not sure 57 and 65 were as strong as ONI suggests...There is a big difference to me in using 30 year norms for a cycle than for statistical data such a snow and temps....We are trying to gauge the impact of a phenomenon based on a measurement that CPC has artificially constructed... Here is ERSSTv4 with fixed 71-2000 norms...you can see Oct is 2nd warmest of all time in 3.4....I think the columns are 3, 4, 3.4, 1+2 ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v4/index/ersst.v4.el_nino.dat FWIW, filtering could change the ONI as we move forward...the current 1.7 could be revised...I know sept was revised up .07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.