El Nino 2023-2024

[SnoSki14]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

More like a much warmer climate influences the anomalies differently than a cooler one. So the expression of the natural variability shifts over time. It loads the dice toward warmer outcomes than cooler ones. As to the recent La Niña background state since 15-16, we just don’t know if this may eventually shift to something else. But if it eventually does and we get a whole new winter pattern, doesn’t mean that the warming wasn’t responsible for the last 8 winters. But other changes from the warming asserted themselves for a new winter pattern should it emerge.  

I don't understand the dismissal of CC on our weather patterns to the point of flat out denial.

Of course background warming is having an impact and a pretty substantial one at that. 

Also don't like when people say oh if so and so pattern today occurred in the past it would also be unfavorable for cold/snow. That might be true but to what extent and is it really the same kind of pattern. 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, snowman19 said:

I get the argument….find any way possible to say this is going to be a cold and snowy winter. Right now it’s “don’t look at the ONI or SSTs” if the MEI drops significantly it will be “don’t look at the MEI” and “there’s more to it than ENSO, other factors will decide this winter” next. Last year we ignored the MEI and PDO. We play the game of find any way humanely possible to predict a cold and snowy winter for the east coast every fall, as predicable as the rising sun

I don’t think that most on here raising questions on how much coupling we get, how strong the El Niño gets, and how much influence the WPAC exerts are doing so in the interest of a cold winter. It’s more like trying to figure out what the actual flavor of the winter pattern may be. We have had warm El Niño’s, warm uncoupled El Niño’s, and warm La Ninas over the last 8 years. So going cold for a winter forecast regardless of the ENSO state hasn’t payed off for your clients. If we want a cold winter, we would probably need some extreme version of the -EPO blocks from 13-14 and 14-15. But the forcing since then has only resulted in sporadic cold months which couldn’t sustain. So one of these days we will eventually get another cold winter, but I may not be easily attributable to the specific ENSO state. The one common denominator to all our scattered cold months since 15-16 has been extreme blocking. So the cold winter fans will need a sustained and record blocking regime to lock in. How you forecast that before the winter starts is beyond our current technology. Plus the warming background state makes a colder winter less likely. But that doesn’t mean impossible. 

[snowman19]

I don’t think that most on here raising questions on how much coupling we get, how strong the El Niño gets, and how much influence the WPAC exerts are doing so in the interest of a cold winter. It’s more like trying to figure out what the actual flavor of the winter pattern may be. We have had warm El Niño’s, warm uncoupled El Niño’s, and warm La Ninas over the last 8 years. So going cold for a winter forecast regardless of the ENSO state hasn’t payed off for your clients. If we want a cold winter, we would probably need some extreme version of the -EPO blocks from 13-14 and 14-15. But the forcing since then has only resulted in sporadic cold months which couldn’t sustain. So one of these days we will eventually get another cold winter, but I may not be easily attributable to the specific ENSO state. The one common denominator to all our scattered cold months since 15-16 has been extreme blocking. So the cold winter fans will need a sustained and record blocking regime to lock in. How you forecast that before the winter starts is beyond our current technology. Plus the warming background state makes a colder winter less likely. But that doesn’t mean impossible. 

Not arguing with that and not sure why Mitch had a problem with that list of strong El Niños since 1940 since 57-58 and 09-10 were 2 of the 7

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

More like a much warmer climate influences the anomalies differently than a cooler one. So the expression of the natural variability shifts over time. It loads the dice toward warmer outcomes than cooler ones. As to the recent La Niña background state since 15-16, we just don’t know if this may eventually shift to something else. But if it eventually does and we get a whole new winter pattern, doesn’t mean that the warming wasn’t responsible for the last 8 winters. But other changes from the warming asserted themselves for a new winter pattern should it emerge.  

The only aspect that is definitely true is the dice are loaded towards warmer outcomes. The rest is speculation and heresey at this time. 

[brooklynwx99]

5 hours ago, snowman19 said:

I get the argument….find any way possible to say this is going to be a cold and snowy winter. Right now it’s “don’t look at the ONI or SSTs” if the MEI drops significantly it will be “don’t look at the MEI” and “there’s more to it than ENSO, other factors will decide this winter” next. Last year we ignored the MEI and PDO. We play the game of find any way humanely possible to predict a cold and snowy winter for the east coast every fall, as predicable as the rising sun

you know as well as anybody that this is lagging far behind past super Ninos. it’s not like the MEI is like half a degree lower. it’s like 1-2 degrees too low… that is going to make a difference 

[George001]

6 hours ago, snowman19 said:

I get the argument….find any way possible to say this is going to be a cold and snowy winter. Right now it’s “don’t look at the ONI or SSTs” if the MEI drops significantly it will be “don’t look at the MEI” and “there’s more to it than ENSO, other factors will decide this winter” next. Last year we ignored the MEI and PDO. We play the game of find any way humanely possible to predict a cold and snowy winter for the east coast every fall, as predicable as the rising sun

Yeah ignoring the PDO was a mistake, but I’m going to disagree with you on the MEI. All the MEI was saying was that the La Niña was going to act like a stronger Nina than ONI would imply. That is bad for the mid Atlantic, but NYC north it’s really not. Strong Ninas are fine up here. If you use MEI, the 2010-2011 was the strongest La Niña on record. La Nina’s, especially stronger ones are more dependent on North Atlantic blocking (polar region). Historically strong Nina with a -NAO has been one of the most favorable winter patterns in New England (behind weak nino with a raging +PDO). However, strong ninas with a +NAO are often REALLY bad (see the entire 2011-2012 winter, last year during Jan and Feb).
 

In a nino (non super), +NAO isn’t really a death sentence and can actually be a really good pattern for New England if combined with a +PDO. In a stronger Nino like this one, you really want a +PDO if looking for big snows in the east. El Nino -PDO combo has historically been quite unfavorable for east coast snow (Raindance has some good posts about this). The only ENSO state that really is a death sentence for a cold snowy winter up here is super nino. This winter looks like it has a good chance at having both a -PDO and a super nino, which is why I agree with you about this winter being a dud for my area. I think in general there is this big “Nina bad, Nino good” sentiment for east coast winters which is not necessarily true. 

[jm1220]

6 hours ago, chubbs said:

Good discussion about CC impacts on northeast snow above. Here is my two cents. A couple of general comments first: 1) As mentioned above you have to be careful evaluating  recent trends. Snowfall is highly variable year-to-year and decade-to-decade in the northeast. 2) Climate change is ongoing. If we want a centered 30-year average to get 2023 snowfall climatology we are going to have to wait till 2038. This is problematic because snowfall is becoming even more variable.

Per 2018 paper linked below we shouldn't expect big climate impacts on northeast US storm tracks. In addition we aren't going to see significant negative climate impacts on big snowstorms, they may even become heavier; but, we will steadily lose lighter snow events as conditions that allow snow become more infrequent. In general this agrees with recent experience.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2018GL079820

Now for some data. Below are running 30-year average snow for I95 and a few inland sites. The chart is on a log scale so cities with heavier snow don't dominate and to highlight percentage changes. I would group the chart into two main baskets. There is a northern group with mixed trends, coastal generally doing better than inland in recent decades; and, there is a southern group that is in long-term decline. My interpretation is that the negative impact of loosing potential snow days overcomes other climate change impacts at the southern sites. If you are a snow lover, the data indicates that you don't want to get warmer than Richmond was 1960-1990. Unfortunately we will get to test this theory at additional sites this decade. We'll see if it holds up.

 

 

You can see the fewer clipper/small-medium snow event effect I mentioned in the State College data. Pretty clear decline below BOS in the last 15 years. So many big coastal and boom/bust patterns are awful for central PA. SWFEs also blast warm mid level air there so they become ice events. They used to at least get a few of these mid range snow events per year but now with practically no clippers and so many coastal storms, inland south of where SWFEs can still be snow (like Albany) suffers. Maybe if this stronger SE ridge is a semi permanent feature, State College can recover in the future with more inland runners. They really need a return to more Miller A favored patterns too, and this strong Nino might be good for them. 

[ORH_wxman]

6 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

I don't understand the dismissal of CC on our weather patterns to the point of flat out denial.

Of course background warming is having an impact and a pretty substantial one at that. 

Also don't like when people say oh if so and so pattern today occurred in the past it would also be unfavorable for cold/snow. That might be true but to what extent and is it really the same kind of pattern. 

When we discuss attribution, we’re really discussing “net impact”…CC changes the weather so if we’re being extremely literal as in “butterfly theory”, then of course CC causes everything….it might have caused today to be a partly sunny day in Florida instead of a category 5 hurricane. That’s why we discuss net impacts. 
 

We know deep PNA troughs have dug into Baja California before so we can see how the patterns looked when that happened in the past and the compare it to a deep Baja CA trough in  Dec 2022. 
 

Frankly, any dismissal of skepticism on attribution studies as someone denying CC at all is just as bad as someone actually claiming there is no effect. It’s usually a tactic to try and shut down discussion rather than engage using empirical evidence. Both are not scientific inquiry…and more like dogma. 

[ORH_wxman]

2 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

you know as well as anybody that this is lagging far behind past super Ninos. it’s not like the MEI is like half a degree lower. it’s like 1-2 degrees too low… that is going to make a difference 

It’s gonna need to rise very quickly like ‘82 did to atmospherically behave like a super Nino but we’re already lagging behind ‘82…it could still get there if it did it like a month or two delayed but not sure if that is a long shot or not. 
 

Either way, this is going to be an instructional example. 

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

When we discuss attribution, we’re really discussing “net impact”…CC changes the weather so if we’re being extremely literal as in “butterfly theory”, then of course CC causes everything….it might have caused today to be a partly sunny day in Florida instead of a category 5 hurricane. That’s why we discuss net impacts. 
 

We know deep PNA troughs have dug into Baja California before so we can see how the patterns looked when that happened in the past and the compare it to a deep Baja CA trough in  Dec 2022. 
 

Frankly, any dismissal of skepticism on attribution studies as someone denying CC at all is just as bad as someone actually claiming there is no effect. It’s usually a tactic to try and shut down discussion rather than engage using empirical evidence. Both are not scientific inquiry…and more like dogma. 

I don’t think we can blame the disappointing pattern last December completely on the -PNA trough in Western North America. The actual 500 mb trough wasn’t as deep as we used to see under previous -PNA -AO patterns from the 50s to early 70s. The big issue was with how far south the -AO Greenland block built down into New England. No room for 50/50 low development and colder high pressure to build in behind it like was common in the earlier era. That being said, this wasn’t always the best pattern for snow even in an earlier era for the Northeast. But there was more cold available back then making a difference in marginal situations. Also less tendency for the stronger height rises east of New England to steer the storm tracks further west. Many of those earlier seasons with such a strong -AO month along with a -PNA had more snow in NYC than last winter did. Last winter also had the lowest snowfall production for NYC with any winter month featuring an AO reading lower than -2.5.

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

I don’t think we can blame the disappointing pattern last December completely on the -PNA trough in Western North America. The actual 500 mb trough wasn’t as deep as we used to see under previous -PNA -AO patterns from the 50s to early 70s. The big issue was with how far south the -AO Greenland block built down into New England. No room for 50/50 low development and colder high pressure to build in behind it like was common in the earlier era. That being said, this wasn’t always the best pattern for snow even in an earlier era for the Northeast. But there was more cold available back then making a difference in marginal situations. Also less tendency for the stronger height rises east of New England to steer the storm tracks further west. Many of those earlier seasons with such a strong -AO month along with a -PNA had more snow in NYC than last winter did. Last winter also had the lowest snowfall production for NYC with any winter month featuring an AO reading lower than -2.5.

Yeah in the monthly mean it wasn’t as great as those previous examples but during the core period of favorability (those two weeks leading into Xmas), we did have a good height response below the block but we got unlucky with that phase out west prior to the 12/22-23 storm

 

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah in the monthly mean it wasn’t as great as those previous examples but during the core period of favorability (those two weeks leading into Xmas), we did have a good height response below the block but we got unlucky with that phase out west prior to the 12/22-23 storm

 

It was the most disappointing NYC seasonal snowfall total with one of the DJF winter months recording a -2.5 or lower average monthly -AO reading. The 2 storms during that period for NYC came too far west on the 16th and 23rd. This was due to the Greenland block building too far south into Eastern New England.
 

22-23….2.3

10-11…..61.9

09-10....51.4

85-86….13.0

84-85…24.1

77-78….50.7

76-77….24.5

68-69….30.2

65-66….21.4

62-63….16.3

 

[snowman19]

3 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

It’s gonna need to rise very quickly like ‘82 did to atmospherically behave like a super Nino but we’re already lagging behind ‘82…it could still get there if it did it like a month or two delayed but not sure if that is a long shot or not. 
 
Either way, this is going to be an instructional example. 

The atmosphere is starting to respond and couple (-SOI, strong STJ, OLR, +IOD) now and not just the ENSO SSTs/subsurface. It appears the Niña “lag” has worn off and it’s all systems go.
 

STJ: https://x.com/brianbledsoe/status/1703087558098583774?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

OLR: https://x.com/climate_earth20/status/1703105141161721870?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

IOD: https://x.com/jnmet/status/1701593677016203359?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

SOI: https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

[40/70 Benchmark]

@snowman19you keep quoting this ghost that supposedly said to "ignore the MEI" last year..who said that? The MEI is part of the reason why every seasonal forecast on the face of the planet called for -PDO/PNA last season, despite a modest peak ONI of -1.0, which was identical to 1995-1996. Yet there was general consensus that normal snowfall in the east would be a tall task. I'll pull up that portion of my outlook, if you would like...

[bluewave]

30 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

The atmosphere is starting to respond and couple (-SOI, strong STJ, OLR, +IOD) now and not just the ENSO SSTs/subsurface. It appears the Niña “lag” has worn off and it’s all systems go.
 

STJ: https://x.com/brianbledsoe/status/1703087558098583774?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

OLR: https://x.com/climate_earth20/status/1703105141161721870?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

IOD: https://x.com/jnmet/status/1701593677016203359?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw

SOI: https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

Unfortunately, the -SOI isn’t very well coupled with the the winds along the equator this September. No strong WWBs to be found this month. Which isn’t characteristic for developing El Niños in September. So an Important MEI element for El Niño’s is still missing. The atmosphere still doesn’t resemble anything approaching super El Niño mode. The current 3.4 anomaly  around 1.6 is behaving more like a +0.75. 

 

 

[mitchnick]

Looks like the CFS wants to fire up the MJO starting around the 10th of October  but is pretty benign until then. The progged MJO activity coincides with 3.4 rising on the bottom graph. Is it right? Probably to some extent in light of other modeling.
Color Shades = Wind Anomalies (Yellow = Westerly Anomalies/Active MJO & Blue = Easterly Anomalies/Inactive MJO)
Red Countours indicate MJO Phase (Solid = Active Phase & Dotted = Inactive Phase)
Black Countours indicate High or Low Pressue Bias (Solid = Low Pressure/possible El Nino & Dotted = High Pressure/possible La Nina)

 

[snowman19]

4 hours ago, mitchnick said:

Looks like the CFS wants to fire up the MJO starting around the 10th of October  but is pretty benign until then. The progged MJO activity coincides with 3.4 rising on the bottom graph. Is it right? Probably to some extent in light of other modeling.
Color Shades = Wind Anomalies (Yellow = Westerly Anomalies/Active MJO & Blue = Easterly Anomalies/Inactive MJO)
Red Countours indicate MJO Phase (Solid = Active Phase & Dotted = Inactive Phase)
Black Countours indicate High or Low Pressue Bias (Solid = Low Pressure/possible El Nino & Dotted = High Pressure/possible La Nina)
 

100% believable that we see big strengthening of this El Niño in October and November for the reasons (STJ, IOD, SOI, OLR) I stated above. The “La Niña lag” from the last 3 years appears to be over and the atmospheric coupling with the already impressive oceanic event can feedback and begin. The seasonal changes are only going to serve to accelerate the coupling, as is climo for this time of the year. I agree with @Brooklynwx99 about this

[bluewave]

Really weak subsurface compared to the strongest El Niño’s since 1972. Still no significant WPAC cold pool. So we have the lowest MEI on record for SSTS of +1.6 in 3.4. This continues to raise the issue of another possible  weakly coupled or maybe non canonically coupled event. Translation..seasonal models may not have a clue what the actual winter 500 mb pattern will look like. OHC anomalies may struggle to get into the +1.8 to 2.5 range of other really strong events. This also raises the possibility that the official ONI trimonthly peaks under +2.0 and the MEI never gets above +0.8 to +1.2 which is right near the threshold for weak or non canonical coupling.

 

 

[snowman19]

@Gawx Think the weekly update tomorrow has ENSO 3.4 up to +1.7C….Your thoughts?

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

@Gawx Think the weekly update tomorrow has ENSO 3.4 up to +1.7C….Your thoughts?

I’m leaning more to +1.6. Keep in mind that the Mon update is the avg of the week prior. The max of the month had approached 1.7 though, including on 9/13.

[bluewave]

34 minutes ago, GaWx said:

I’m leaning more to +1.6. Keep in mind that the Mon update is the avg of the week prior. The max of the month had approached 1.7 though, including on 9/13.

Going to need the last two weeks of September to average around +2.1 to +2.4 for  the August Euro September  forecast of 1.89 and Australian 1.98 to verify. But the stronger trades and weaker OHC won’t support those levels. Everything looks steady for time being. So even if the CFS dip is overdone, we may hold around +1.6 for the September monthly average.

 

[SnoSki14]

15 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

@snowman19you keep quoting this ghost that supposedly said to "ignore the MEI" last year..who said that? The MEI is part of the reason why every seasonal forecast on the face of the planet called for -PDO/PNA last season, despite a modest peak ONI of -1.0, which was identical to 1995-1996. Yet there was general consensus that normal snowfall in the east would be a tall task. I'll pull up that portion of my outlook, if you would like...

Notice he also has no counter to Bluewave's analysis regarding the supposed "Super" Nino and its refusal to couple. 

[mitchnick]

17 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Going to need the last two weeks of September to average around +2.1 to +2.4 for  the August Euro September  forecast of 1.89 and Australian 1.98 to verify. But the stronger trades and weaker OHC won’t support those levels. Everything looks steady for time being. So even if the CFS dip was overdone, we may hold around +1.6 for the September monthly average.

When you get short term fails like the ones you suggest (and the numbers don't lie), it's hard to believe the October updates for the winter won't be knocked down a few pegs. 

Which then begs the question how much can the MEI rise between September's number and October's? Pure speculation, but anything greater than .2 would be surprising to this weenie, and that would likely end chances of an MEI in a super range.

 

[bluewave]

19 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

When you get short term fails like the ones you suggest (and the numbers don't lie), it's hard to believe the October updates for the winter won't be knocked down a few pegs. 

Which then begs the question how much can the MEI rise between September's number and October's? Pure speculation, but anything greater than .2 would be surprising to this weenie, and that would likely end chances of an MEI in a super range.

 

The question then becomes how does a weak to maybe moderate MEI reading mesh with the WPAC warm pool and what kind of 500 mb pattern does that produce for winter? 

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The question then becomes how does a weak to maybe moderate MEI reading mesh with the WPAC warm pool and what kind of 500 mb pattern does that produce for winter? 

I agree. I'm just in no mood to roll the dice with a straight up super MEI, and that's looking less likely as each day goes by so far.

[bluewave]

6 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

I agree. I'm just in no mood to roll the dice with a straight up super MEI, and that's looking less likely as each day goes by so far.

It would probably be more useful for seasonal forecasting if they issued seasonal MEI forecasts instead of for 3.4 ONI.

[mitchnick]

10 minutes ago, bluewave said:

It would probably be more useful for seasonal forecasting if they issued seasonal MEI forecasts instead of for 3.4 ONI.

Well, until they can get better enso forecasts, MEI is probably a bridge too far. But it would be something else to argue about! 

[snowman19]

We just had over 3 years of non stop La Niña conditions/forcing. The atmosphere just doesn’t completely flip on a dime, unlike the ocean. There is a lag, as there always is

[bluewave]

59 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Well, until they can get better enso forecasts, MEI is probably a bridge too far. But it would be something else to argue about! 

It was easier in the old days before we had to be concerned about the WPAC warm pool. Notice how much warmer the WPAC is now than in 1997. That was also a legit +IOD pattern with the whole Western IO warm and Eastern IO and WPAC cold. Completely opposite of today. Also notice how much warmer now the rest of the oceans are now. So it’s as if the ENSO is getting lost in the mix of global potential forcing regions. So we get these really low RONI and MEI values. Making it more challenging as to which type of 500 mb pattern will occur in the winter. 

 

[snowman19]

15 minutes ago, bluewave said:

It was easier in the old days before we had to be concerned about the WPAC warm pool. Notice how much warmer the WPAC is now than in 1997. That was also a legit +IOD pattern with the whole Western IO warm and Eastern IO and WPAC cold. Completely opposite of today. Also notice how much warmer now the rest of the oceans are now. So it’s as if the ENSO is getting lost in the mix of global potential forcing regions. So we get these really low RONI and MEI values. Making it more challenging as to which type of 500 mb pattern will occur in the winter. 



 

The current +IOD is gaining strength rapidly and is well coupled. It seems the models are underestimating its ultimate strength too: https://x.com/ryans_wx/status/1703380021354606982?s=46&t=NChJQK9_PUjA1K7D2SMojw