El Nino 2023-2024

[MJO812]

32 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Absolutely no Atlantic blocking though. Was hoping to see the PV a bit more WSW than where it is progged on the weeklies.

PNA > NAO

[Eskimo Joe]

15 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

PNA > NAO

Yes, but not having a decent -NAO isn't going to help us south of 40N. You'll be fine. Might be a top 5 winter for NY and New England this year.

[GaWx]

23 minutes ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Yes, but not having a decent -NAO isn't going to help us south of 40N. You'll be fine. Might be a top 5 winter for NY and New England this year.

At least there appears to be a decent -AO. Also, the ante is upped, especially as we head into Jan, by the potential much weaker SPV that’s showing on this run.

[Terpeast]

4 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i mean, we've only been in two legitimate El Ninos in the last decade, so it would be rare given the low frequency. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've already gotten a 8-1-2 pass given that this event is strong

And don't forget the big MJO 8-1-2 event back in the spring that kicked off the first WWB. 

I think some are holding onto a certain bias that ignores recent 8-1-2 incursions.

[bluewave]

13 hours ago, mitchnick said:

So you trust a 282 hr forecast off the Geps but not its MJO forecast? Honestly, it looks like you're trying to find any excuse for a lousy winter.

That map was posted as what can happen when we have a -PDO and El Niño combined since it matches actual instances from the past. We won’t know for sure until the models get closer to early December since there is sometimes a bit of a forecast barrier around this time of year. As for getting a strong MJO 8 in December, it only happened once in the last decade during 2017. So it’s been a very rare occurrence this early in the season like SSWs. Our our stronger MJO 8s and SSWs have typically  been a JFM event when they were able to occur. Not a guarantee that they will occur again this year. All we know for sure is that a strong to super El Niños like we have now and -PDO have historically both been warm signals for winters. But the snowfall signal was more variable. Better snowfall outcomes during the 82-83 and 15-16 super El Niño’s than 97-98 and 72-73. Also better snowfall outcomes during 04-05 -PDO El Niño than 94-95. So very mixed snowfall results.

[40/70 Benchmark]

16 hours ago, NEPASnow said:

So would this current el nino SSTA, if they were to stay similar, cause this type of jet stream pattern for winter?

 

Weak el Nino/Modoki Hadley Cell Configuration

[40/70 Benchmark]

14 hours ago, bluewave said:

The risk is that the -PDO stubbornly tries to hang on and the ridge NW of Hawaii splits the Aleutian Low. One piece goes back to the Bering Sea and another into the SW US. This pops a downstream ridge near the Great Lakes or Northeast even with a technically positive PNA. While model forecasts beyond 10 days are uncertain, some of them are starting to show patterns matching past -PDO El Niños.

 

I get the risk with the PDO....I was just explaining what a traditional Modoki configuration looks like.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

14 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i mean, we've only been in two legitimate El Ninos in the last decade, so it would be rare given the low frequency. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've already gotten a 8-1-2 pass given that this event is strong

Chris is a bright guy, but don't let him catch you smiling, or else he will point out a multi decadal trend away from whatever made you smile.

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 hours ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Absolutely no Atlantic blocking though. Was hoping to see the PV a bit more WSW than where it is progged on the weeklies.

December is going to feature a positive NAO in the mean....just accept that....especially if we see a substantial warming of the polar stratosphere and accompanying weakening of the PV, as the circumstances that trigger that often produce a warmer outcome and unfavorable patterns for winter enthusiasts in the short term. The desired impact is delayed often up to about 30 days while the stratospheric warming ideally propagates downward to the troposphere where it directly alters our weather.

[40/70 Benchmark]

14 hours ago, mitchnick said:

So you trust a 282 hr forecast off the Geps but not its MJO forecast? Honestly, it looks like you're trying to find any excuse for a lousy winter.

The west Pacific warm pool is the result of Chris urinating in the collective cheerios of winter weenies for about the past decade lol

[bluewave]

21 hours ago, snowman19 said:

More warming to come and this El Niño has very clearly not peaked yet. Again, the peak probably doesn’t happen until late December or January. I don’t think we are done with the WWBs yet, the next one/ones are not going to be as strong as this one is though. I would also not discount region 1+2 warming again once this KW surfaces off the SA coast. The warm pool is now completely east of the dateline. Per Paul Roundy: “The extent of warm water higher than 31C is higher east of the dateline today than in any historic event. In part, it's because this El Niño was associated with weaker initial WWBs (which cool the ocean locally due to evaporation). That meant that this WWB had more warm water to work with.”

Big subsurface warming/DWKW:

This may be one of the rare cases when something that keeps getting pushed back actually verifies. The models have been forecasting much stronger WWBs than have verified near the Dateline since the spring. But this last WWB was actually the 2nd strongest on record for the November 7-15 period behind 1982. So this WWB was the real deal. I didn’t realize how strong it was until the database updated last few days for comparison to past events. So this is the best shot at at least a weekly to perhaps monthly super reading. But ONI is trickier since it involves a 3 month period. And such long forecasts like that can be low skill. 

 

1st place…1982

2nd strongest 2023

Close 3rd place 1994

 

4th place 1965

 

[Terpeast]

The recent WWB plus this:

Only bolsters my confidence that the nino will overpower the -PDO, and we’ll see it mostly uncoupled even if it stays negative. 

[rclab]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The west Pacific warm pool is the result of Chris urinating in the collective cheerios of winter weenies for about the past decade lol

Who was that masked man? …. Now we know…. As always ….

 

[George001]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

This may be one of the rare cases when something that keeps getting pushed back actually verifies. The models have been forecasting much stronger WWBs than have verified near the Dateline since the spring. But this last WWB was actually the 2nd strongest on record for the November 7-15 period behind 1982. So this WWB was the real deal. I didn’t realize how strong it was until the database updated last few days for comparison to past events. So this is the best shot at at least a weekly to perhaps monthly super reading. But ONI is trickier since it involves a 3 month period. And such long forecasts like that can be low skill. 

 

1st place…1982

2nd strongest 2023

Close 3rd place 1994

 

4th place 1965

 

Paul Roundy was right. I’m not quite there yet, but I’m getting very close to jumping back on the super nino train.

[brooklynwx99]

20 minutes ago, George001 said:

Paul Roundy was right. I’m not quite there yet, but I’m getting very close to jumping back on the super nino train.

you know that these anomalies need to persist for months, right? there have to be five consecutive months over 2C for this event to be classified as super

[snowman19]

you know that these anomalies need to persist for months, right? there have to be five consecutive months over 2C for this event to be classified as super

*3 months (trimonthly)

[snowman19]

Very impressive, rapid subsurface warming (WWB, DWKW):

Comparison of a Nino/+IOD forced pattern vs. Niña/-IOD:

[brooklynwx99]

20 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

*3 months (trimonthly)

no, it's five consecutive months. this is the definition i've most commonly seen, but there isn't one that's the gold standard. NOAA classifies El Nino as five consecutive trimonthlies, though. 1997 and 2015 were over 2C for five straight trimonthlies

[snowman19]

13 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

no, it's five consecutive months. this is the definition i've most commonly seen, but there isn't one that's the gold standard. NOAA classifies El Nino as five consecutive trimonthlies, though. 1997 and 2015 were over 2C for five straight trimonthlies

The ONI 3 consecutive month, trimonthly has always been and still is (as far as I know) the standard, it’s what we based our forecast guesses on….

[snowman19]

[GaWx]

39 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

no, it's five consecutive months. this is the definition i've most commonly seen, but there isn't one that's the gold standard. NOAA classifies El Nino as five consecutive trimonthlies, though. 1997 and 2015 were over 2C for five straight trimonthlies

 On the linked table, the minimum to officially be counted by NOAA as El Niño (red) or La Niña (blue) is, indeed, 5 consecutive trimonths of 0.5+/-0.5- (we all agree on this):

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

 For El Niño strength above weak, I’ve always gone by the peak strength of the trimonthlies without requiring multiples. Example: 1972. If that required 5 months of +2+ ERSST, it would be only strong rather than super because only Nov and Dec were +2+ per this table:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

But I’ve always seen it classified as super here and elsewhere.

 

[GaWx]

3 hours ago, Terpeast said:

The recent WWB plus this:

Only bolsters my confidence that the nino will overpower the -PDO, and we’ll see it mostly uncoupled even if it stays negative. 

Meanwhile, the WCS daily PDO just rose by a large amount for the 2nd straight day. It has risen a whopping 0.35 in just 48 hours (0.17 yesterday and 0.18 two days ago):

[snowman19]

27 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 On the linked table, the minimum to officially be counted by NOAA as El Niño (red) or La Niña (blue) is, indeed, 5 consecutive trimonths of 0.5+/-0.5- (we all agree on this):
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
 For El Niño strength above weak, I’ve always gone by the peak strength of the trimonthlies without requiring multiples. Example: 1972. If that required 5 months of +2+ ERSST, it would be only strong rather than super because only Nov and Dec were +2+ per this table:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
But I’ve always seen it classified as super here and elsewhere.
 

So, like you said, applying that logic, 72-73 was not a super El Niño then. If we change it and now go by 5 consecutive months instead of the trimonthly ONI average peak like we did in the ENSO guesstimate forecast contest, then no one will be right. Why would we change this now? So by this logic, even if this Nino goes super in the ONI (trimonthly) sense, people can say it was wrong anyway. That’s insane, why wasn’t this the standard we all agreed on back months ago when we did that contest? Seems to me there’s a very clear agenda here

 

@brooklynwx99 I get it, so even if this event goes trimonthly super ONI, you are going to come back and say it really wasn’t a super El Niño and doesn’t matter even though you agreed on the ONI being the standard back when we did the guesstimate contest. “It wasn’t super for 5 months!!” Loophole. This of the equivalent of reshuffling the deck at the end of the game

[bluewave]

5 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 On the linked table, the minimum to officially be counted by NOAA as El Niño (red) or La Niña (blue) is, indeed, 5 consecutive trimonths of 0.5+/-0.5- (we all agree on this):

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

 For El Niño strength above weak, I’ve always gone by the peak strength of the trimonthlies without requiring multiples. Example: 1972. If that required 5 months of +2+ ERSST, it would be only strong rather than super because only Nov and Dec were +2+ per this table:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

But I’ve always seen it classified as super here and elsewhere.

 

Yeah, the CPC ENSO blog just mentioned this went strong with just one 3 month ONI period meeting the 1.5C+ criteria. So I wouldn’t have any problem classifying this a super if we get at least one 3 month ONI period of 2.0 or greater. But the strongest years like 15-16, 97-98, 82-83, and 72-73 had multiple overlapping 3 month ONI periods.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/november-2023-el-nino-update-transport-options

 

First stop—this El Niño has now met the threshold for a “strong” event! The August–October Oceanic Niño Index, which measures the three-month-average sea surface temperature in the east-central tropical Pacific (the so-called Niño-3.4 region), was 1.5 °C above the long-term average (long-term is currently 1991–2020). The Oceanic Niño Index is our primary metric for ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation, the entire El Niño and La Niña system). The monthly Niño-3.4 Index was 1.7 °C above average.

[brooklynwx99]

4 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

So, like you said, applying that logic, 72-73 was not a super El Niño then. If we change it and now go by 5 consecutive months instead of the trimonthly ONI average peak like we did in the ENSO guesstimate forecast contest, then no one will be right. Why would we change this now? So by this logic, even if this Nino goes super in the ONI (trimonthly) sense, people can say it was wrong anyway and it’s not really a super event or even a strong event, depending on how this all plays out for that matter. That’s insane, why wasn’t this the standard we all agreed on back months ago when we did that contest? Seems to me there’s a very clear agenda here

lmao I'm just saying that one trimonthly period isn't the actual accepted definition. that has nothing to do with any contest. just saying that when this will be officially classified, it will probably be done as a strong event. I'm not referring to the contest here or anything like that

i still have a hard time believing that this even gets to a full trimonthly. maybe it squeaks one out at 2.0 but that's probably it

[ORH_wxman]

3 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

lmao I'm just saying that one trimonthly period isn't the actual accepted definition. that has nothing to do with any contest. just saying that when this will be officially classified, it will probably be done as a strong event. I'm not referring to the contest here or anything like that

i still have a hard time believing that this even gets to a full trimonthly. maybe it squeaks one out at 2.0 but that's probably it

If one ONI trimonthly reaches 2.1C, then it will be classified as super. It seems 2.0C is still technically strong since 1965-66 is classified as strong with a max ONI value of 2.0. 
 

But in order to get one ONI trimonthly exceeding 2.0, we’re gonna need these current values to sustain all the way through January. I think that’s going to be quite difficult.  

[brooklynwx99]

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

If one ONI trimonthly reaches 2.1C, then it will be classified as super. It seems 2.0C is still technically strong since 1965-66 is classified as strong with a max ONI value of 2.0. 
 

But in order to get one ONI trimonthly exceeding 2.0, we’re gonna need these current values to sustain all the way through January. I think that’s going to be quite difficult.  

it would be nice to have a well entrenched definition on this stuff, but it's different everywhere you look. quite annoying for these kinds of discussions

I just don't want to see shit on twitter of people declaring this a super event after one monthly reading lmao

[GaWx]

16 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

If one ONI trimonthly reaches 2.1C, then it will be classified as super. It seems 2.0C is still technically strong since 1965-66 is classified as strong with a max ONI value of 2.0. 
 

But in order to get one ONI trimonthly exceeding 2.0, we’re gonna need these current values to sustain all the way through January. I think that’s going to be quite difficult.  

I'll call this one super if the UNROUNDED ERSST trimonthly peak is +2.00+. No hidden agenda. So, if it is only +1.99, I'll call it just strong, even though the ONI table would show it as +2.0. If it comes in at +2.01, I'll consider it super. I've not seen a requirement for +2.1C. I've always seen +2.0 as the key threshold just like +1.50 for strong (NOAA just called the current Nino strong per @bluewave) and +1.00 for moderate. But to each their own.

 

The current Nino was for ERSST unrounded at +1.54 for ASO (the only trimonth at +1.50+) per the following link of unrounded trimonthlies and it has already been classified as strong by NOAA:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt

[Terpeast]

My bar is 3 trimonthlies above 2.0 for a super. 

Even if we got to that point, I don’t think the atmospheric response will reflect a super. More like high end moderate to strong. 

[ORH_wxman]

9 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

it would be nice to have a well entrenched definition on this stuff, but it's different everywhere you look. quite annoying for these kinds of discussions

I just don't want to see shit on twitter of people declaring this a super event after one monthly reading lmao

There’s a difference between one super Nino monthly value and one super Nino trimonthly value….one requires 3 months to average over 2.0 and the other just requires one month. 
 

I’ve never seen any strength classification done with ONI that didn’t just use the peak trimonthly value.