ENSO 2017 Discussion.

[BuffaloWeather]

1 hour ago, Jonger said:

Oh, I understand it... I just don't think there is enough technology to put any faith in it yet.

The seasonal forecasts bust as often as they pan out.

February 2015 was depicted as above normal over the eastern US within 3 weeks of Feb 1st 2015.

I am not sure I agree with this. Most seasonal forecast are pretty close in regards to temperature once we hit late Oct/Nov. Precipitation on the other hand is absolutely impossible to predict. The pattern that set-up last winter with the Aleutian low and southeast ridge was predicted all over the place in seasonal outlooks. We had a below normal snowfall here by quite a bit but Binghamton New York set their all time record snowiest season. That is insane to me as we were so above normal in temperatures. 

[Stebo]

42 minutes ago, IWXwx said:

I guess that I'd rather depend on an attempt at a long range forecast through science than reading a caterpillar's butt or whatever.

Yeah the caterpillar nonsense doesn't need playing, people using modelling at least are trying to get a long range idea out there.

[Stebo]

20 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I am not sure I agree with this. Most seasonal forecast are pretty close in regards to temperature once we hit late Oct/Nov. Precipitation on the other hand is absolutely impossible to predict. The pattern that set-up last winter with the Aleutian low and southeast ridge was predicted all over the place in seasonal outlooks. We had a below normal snowfall here by quite a bit but Binghamton New York set their all time record snowiest season. That is insane to me as we were so above normal in temperatures. 

The use of winter as the main discussion point is a bit flawed too, as it is the most variable season. The other 3 seasons usually get modeled pretty well ahead of time with some variance but for the most part the idea is usually correct.

[BuffaloWeather]

16 minutes ago, Stebo said:

The use of winter as the main discussion point is a bit flawed too, as it is the most variable season. The other 3 seasons usually get modeled pretty well ahead of time with some variance but for the most part the idea is usually correct.

Exactly. I don't think people realize how good seasonal forecasting has gotten. For the most part it has made incredible advancements in the last few decades. While there are a myriad of factors that go into seasonal forecasting, for the most part ENSO plays the biggest role in these forecast. 

[Hoosier]

For the winter forecasts, there are some people/outlets that are seemingly worse than a coin flip, probably due to biases creeping in too much.  It's really tough to do well consistently and I consider the people that even have a 70% success rate to be doing pretty well. 

[Stebo]

2 hours ago, Hoosier said:

For the winter forecasts, there are some people/outlets that are seemingly worse than a coin flip, probably due to biases creeping in too much.  It's really tough to do well consistently and I consider the people that even have a 70% success rate to be doing pretty well. 

Yeah like Jonger posting that accuweather nonsense, of course that outlook was laced with bias. If you go strictly by modeling/enso/teleconnections without any introduced bias, you should have a pretty decent success rate. Obviously extreme events like last February or Dec 2015 will happen once and a while to skew the average, but that doesn't mean that everything is then wrong.  It is just hard when you have a +9-12 month show up. That will screw any forecast or average up.

[Hoosier]

Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive trimonth overlap period.

[RogueWaves]

32 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive trimonth overlap period.

So, are they then changing historical records? If anything smells of warm biasing, this does. It's akin to MLB changing how batting avgs are calculated or something similar. 

[Stebo]

1 hour ago, Hoosier said:

Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive trimonth overlap period.

Wonder why the change

[Hoosier]

33 minutes ago, Stebo said:

Wonder why the change

Well, they do it every so often.  That's all I know.

[BuffaloWeather]

16 hours ago, Stebo said:

Wonder why the change

Chances of getting a stronger La Nina than last year?

[RogueWaves]

2 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Chances of getting a stronger La Nina than last year?

IF I read it correctly, the values would bias warmer across the board, thus making it more difficult to get a strong Nina and much easier to get a strong Nino. 

[BuffaloWeather]

4 hours ago, RogueWaves said:

IF I read it correctly, the values would bias warmer across the board, thus making it more difficult to get a strong Nina and much easier to get a strong Nino. 

We're either getting a weak or moderate La Nina, we're not getting any Nino this winter. 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

[RogueWaves]

15 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

We're either getting a weak or moderate La Nina, we're not getting any Nino this winter. 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

You missed the main point of his post. It wasn't about where we end up SST's-wise, it was about a change in how the gov calculates the official values for their official reported ENSO values. Basically, they're moving the goal-posts, lol

Hoosier's original post:

Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive tri-month overlap period.

[BuffaloWeather]

9 minutes ago, RogueWaves said:

You missed the main point of his post. It wasn't about where we end up SST's-wise, it was about a change in how the gov calculates the official values for their official reported ENSO values. Basically, they're moving the goal-posts, lol

Hoosier's original post:

Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive tri-month overlap period.

Yeah I get that. My question was just asking his opinion on the strength of the La Nina this year. Not sure why it quoted that. My bad!

[Snowstorms]

We've seen some warming in all the ENSO regions in the past 2 weeks; 

 

Despite the warming, I have no reason to believe why we won't see a strong weak La Nina this winter. Subsurface anomalies are still quite cold and its only a matter time before it reaches the surface. This will likely begin next week when the next surge of Trade winds begin. What I find more intriguing is the ongoing cool down along the Baja Peninsula and along the Pac NW and BC coast line. We'll see if that translates into a more -PDO look by winter. 

[BuffaloWeather]

Does anyone have any data for this region for snowfall totals in relation to enso phases? I tried to find the coorelation for Buffalo. It seems any strong Nina/Nino leads to bad winters in terms of snowfall.

Latest ENSO update from Friday. Looks like a weak Nina is favored for the 2nd straight year. Beware of Alaskan Vortex and Southeast Ridges in weak/mod Ninas.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

[RogueWaves]

3 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Does anyone have any data for this region for snowfall totals in relation to enso phases? I tried to find the coorelation for Buffalo. It seems any strong Nina/Nino leads to bad winters in terms of snowfall.

Latest ENSO update from Friday. Looks like a weak Nina is favored for the 2nd straight year. Beware of Alaskan Vortex and Southeast Ridges in weak/mod Ninas.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

Pretty much spot-on for the Lower Lakes region. Too strong in either direction hurts snowfall. Ofc, there's always a few exceptions to every rule but in general weak or neutral combined with other favorable tele's will give us our best seasons. In 07-08 we rode the fine line with that moderate Nina, any stronger and the snow line would've pushed north. As it was, we suffered a ton of melt-offs between events!

[csnavywx]

On 10/2/2017 at 7:33 PM, RogueWaves said:

So, are they then changing historical records? If anything smells of warm biasing, this does. It's akin to MLB changing how batting avgs are calculated or something similar. 

Sorry, but these last two posts of yours are borderline offensive to those of us who actually use the data and understand how it's constructed, corrected and improved over time. There is no conspiracy or bias here.

Case in point: The new ONI data is based on ERSSTv5, which replaces the previous version (ERSSTv4). The net effect on global SST and surface temperature is actually slightly negative (as per GISS):

 

 

Regionally, there are some differences. Some warmer, some cooler, averaging slighly cooler. The ENSO region in 2016 was one of the regions that ended up warmer.

 

From the ERSSTv5 page:
 

Quote

 

The newest version of ERSST, version 5, uses new data sets from ICOADS Release 3.0 (Sea Surface Temperatures) SST; SST comes from Argo floats above 5 meters, Hadley Centre Ice-SST version 2 (HadISST2) ice concentration. ERSSTv5 has improved SST spatial and temporal variability by (a) reducing spatial filtering in training the reconstruction functions Empirical Orthogonal Teleconnections (EOTs), (b) removing high-latitude damping in EOTs, and (c) adding 10 more EOTs in the Arctic. ERSSTv5 improved absolute SST by switching from using Nighttime Marine Air Temperature (NMAT) as a reference to buoy-SST as a reference in correcting ship SST biases. Scientists have further improved ERSSTv5 by using unadjusted First-Guess instead of adjusted First-Guess.

 

 

 

In the future, if you're going to throw around that argument, please back it up. I have no issue with someone pointing out something that's legitimately wrong. That's how it things get improved. However, insinuating it, without providing any sort of evidence, is just plain dodgy behavior.

[Jonger]

On 10/3/2017 at 3:10 PM, RogueWaves said:

IF I read it correctly, the values would bias warmer across the board, thus making it more difficult to get a strong Nina and much easier to get a strong Nino. 

I do prefer looking at raw data.... adjustments still bother me and they do test my faith in climatology. I'm trying to trust the data too, but sometimes these adjustments really test me.

[RogueWaves]

23 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Sorry, but these last two posts of yours are borderline offensive to those of us who actually use the data and understand how it's constructed, corrected and improved over time. There is no conspiracy or bias here.

Case in point: The new ONI data is based on ERSSTv5, which replaces the previous version (ERSSTv4). The net effect on global SST and surface temperature is actually slightly negative (as per GISS):

 

 

Regionally, there are some differences. Some warmer, some cooler, averaging slighly cooler. The ENSO region in 2016 was one of the regions that ended up warmer.

 

From the ERSSTv5 page:
 

 

 

In the future, if you're going to throw around that argument, please back it up. I have no issue with someone pointing out something that's legitimately wrong. That's how it things get improved. However, insinuating it, without providing any sort of evidence, is just plain dodgy behavior.

Hoosier's original post:

"Just a note... there's a new data set for ONI calculations, and the change makes it so that the anomalies are warmer than the previous data... i.e., the 2015-16 super El Nino now has a "warmer" peak trimonthly of +2.6 (compared to +2.3 before).  This means that it's going to be more unlikely to have this upcoming Nina peak at moderate via ONI, and depending on how things develop, it might even struggle to get into weak territory for the required 5 consecutive tri-month overlap period."

 

I didn't start this, but I did add my 2-cent comment(s) that reveal I suppose how I feel about a certain hot-button topic. Feel free to go ahead and pounce on me for that if it makes you feel better. Reading this from your quote still doesn't instill a higher degree of confidence, nor make me feel my comment was blatantly bad. I'm sorry you took it so personal. 

"..Scientists have further improved ERSSTv5 by using unadjusted First-Guess instead of adjusted First-Guess."

I guess I don't even know what that means tbh. 

 

[csnavywx]

First guess SST = climatological SST profile.

[SchaumburgStormer]

Apologies from bumping a thread from the dead, but felt it best fit here. 

 

I am currently visiting australia/New Zealand and find the climo effects of the Nina to be fascinating down here. Many areas (Sydney, Dunedin) have had record warmth this season, along with dryer than normal conditions. Southern New Zealand is especially hard hit by drought conditions, with normal lush vegetation Looking rather dull. Locals have also stated to me that the sea is running about 3 degrees C above normal (it still feels freaking cold). 

Above average stormy conditions are on the Tasman Sea are the new normal this season, and I am currently on a large cruise ship traversing a storm which is rocking the ship back and forth like a drunk at 3am. 

Seems that based on departures from normal, I left the coldest relative place on the planet to visit the warmest. Kind of easy to get the imby thinking and forget that these events really have significant effects elsewhere as well.