El Nino 2023-2024

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Where are you saying that the model trended colder? Please be more specific. My take is that you’re correct for most of the W half of the CONUS, but not for most of the E half, which actually appears to me to be warmer per this new run. Of course, this is just a model prog, which has limitations on accuracy. As one who’d prefer the coldest centered in the E US, I hope the model trend on this run turns out to be wrong, which I feel is a reasonable hope, especially considering how cold OCT may end up in the SE US (looking at past chilly Octobers).

We probably have to take the warmer trend more seriously than we usually do with these seasonal forecasts since it matches the winter pattern of warmer East and colder West since the super El Niño in 15-16.

 

[Terpeast]

While the euro didn’t trend in a positive direction, the gfs ensembles show a healthy aleutian low through most of the Oct forecast period. Worth taking into account when considering the competing enso and pdo:

[bluewave]

6 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

While the euro didn’t trend in a positive direction, the gfs ensembles show a healthy aleutian low through most of the Oct forecast period. Worth taking into account when considering the competing enso and pdo:

 

The real test will come during the winter since a stronger Aleutian low in October is more Niña-like than Nino-like. It’s one of those interesting monthly correlation shifts that we see from time to time. It’s one of the few times of the year when a  La Niña or -PDO produce a trough near the Southeast.

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Actually, the NAO in October is inversely correlated to the Winter. It's the only month of the year where there is a negative correlation.  The coming pattern has 4 cold waves around a Greenland High, so as per data that's not really a great signal. 

[Terpeast]

54 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The real test will come during the winter since a stronger Aleutian low in October is more Niña-like than Nino-like. It’s one of those interesting monthly correlation shifts that we see from time to time. It’s one of the few times of the year when a  La Niña or -PDO produce a trough near the Southeast.

 

Those charts don’t really make physical sense to me. Maybe just a wavelength shift by season? I saw some interesting correlations between a cold Oct / warm Nov and a cold winter, and vice versa. Think it was GaWx who posted that.

[MJO812]

10 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Actually, the NAO in October is inversely correlated to the Winter. It's the only month of the year where there is a negative correlation.  The coming pattern has 4 cold waves around a Greenland High, so as per data that's not really a great signal. 

I heard about the NAO in October being correlated to winter. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

4 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

I heard about the NAO in October being correlated to winter. 

You can backtest it. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table. I was doing Oct >1 =DJFM 

[GaWx]

9 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

You can backtest it. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table. I was doing Oct >1 =DJFM 

I was just going to respond with this link to monthly NAO back to 1950. I’ve already back tested it and have found there’s been no correlation of a -NAO in Oct to a -NAO in the subsequent DJF. Anyone could look at this data and determine this quickly. If one would look in the table, they’d see many examples of a -NAO in Oct followed by a neutral NAO or +NAO in DJF. This is similar to the lack of correlation between a summer -NAO and the subsequent winter -NAO.

 Of course there being no correlation of Oct -NAO and DJF -NAO doesn’t at all mean there can’t be a -NAO for DJF. It just means that having a -NAO in Oct doesn’t at all increase that chance.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

5 minutes ago, GaWx said:

I was just going to respond with this link to monthly NAO back to 1950. I’ve already back tested it and have found there’s been no correlation of a -NAO in Oct to a -NAO in the subsequent DJF. Anyone could look at this data and determine this quickly. If one would look in the table, they’d see many examples of a -NAO in Oct followed by a neutral NAO or +NAO in DJF. This is similar to the lack of correlation between a summer -NAO and the subsequent winter -NAO.

 Of course there being no correlation of Oct -NAO and DJF -NAO doesn’t at all mean there can’t be a -NAO for DJF. It just means that having a -NAO in Oct doesn’t at all increase that chance.

Right, I've actually found a slight opposite correlation (75 years of data).  

[Stormchaserchuck1]

I also have to say that since models settled, the coming +PNA looks pathetic. It is sheared and veered into GOA low/+EPO, then it actually sets up for 3-4 days then collapses. I bet the -PDO played some role in what models showed for this time to what actually happened. 

[bluewave]

The big MEI mismatch continues with AS only coming in at +0.6. Doesn’t match any of the other AS cases with Nino 3.4 in the borderline moderate to strong range. 
 

https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/

 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, Terpeast said:

Those charts don’t really make physical sense to me. Maybe just a wavelength shift by season? I saw some interesting correlations between a cold Oct / warm Nov and a cold winter, and vice versa. Think it was GaWx who posted that.

Are you referring to this that I posted recently?

 

Correlation of Oct PNA to SE US winter for Nino

-25% of the 4 strong +PNA (+1+) in Oct followed by cool to cold SE winter

- A whopping 100% of the 10 weak to moderate +PNA (+0.25 to +0.99) in Oct followed by cold to cool SE winters

- None of the 4 neutral PNA (-0.24 to +0.24) in Oct followed by cool to cold SE winter

- 14% of the 7 -PNA (<-0.24) in Oct followed by cool to cold SE winter

- So, only 13% of the 15 Octs that had either strong +PNA, neutral PNA, or -PNA followed by cool to cold SE winters

- So, sweet spot by far for best shot at cool to cold SE Nino winters is Oct PNA of +0.25 to +0.99. Needless to say after just today discovering this, I’ll be rooting very hard for a +0.25 to +0.99 PNA in Oct!

** The data I’m basing this on is from the monthly PNA table. That’s important to note because the monthlies average ~twice the amplitude of the dailies’ average. 

————————

 Recent GEFS PNA 2 week progs have been increasingly suggesting a +PNA for Oct as a whole. Keep in mind that the absolute value of the corresponding monthly amplitude averages ~twice as high as what the dailies would suggest. That bodes very well for the chances of this full Oct’s PNA coming in as a +PNA when the monthly is released. But hopefully it would come in within the +0.25 to +0.99 interval so as to hit the sweet spot for the chances of a cool to cold winter. I could even extend this sweet spot to ~+1.15 when considering the +1.14 of Oct of 1965, which was followed by a cold winter in the SE. My concern is that it is going to end up possibly well over +1.15.

[GaWx]

55 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Those charts don’t really make physical sense to me. Maybe just a wavelength shift by season? I saw some interesting correlations between a cold Oct / warm Nov and a cold winter, and vice versa. Think it was GaWx who posted that.

 Here’s something else I posted regarding relationship between Oct and winter during ENSO, this one addressing an apparent partial correlation regarding BN temperatures in Oct and in DJF in the SE:

 

During El Niño in the SE, there’s evidence of a partial correlation between a BN Oct and a BN DJF. Check out these 9 KSAV BN (more than 2 BN) Nino Octobers for example: 

- 1876, 1885, 1930, 1957, 1958, 1976, 1977, 1987, 2006

 Of these nine, seven (78%) of the subsequent winters were BN at KSAV: 1876-7, 1885-6, 1930-1, 1957-8, 1976-7, 1977-8, 1987-8

The other two (22%), 1958-9 and 2006-7, were NN

None (0%) were AN.

 

 These 11 El Niño Octs were AN at KSAV

-1884, 1911, 1918, 1919, 1939, 1941, 1951, 1969, 1986, 2002, 2018

Subsequent winters:

3 (27%) BN: 1939-40, 1969-70, 2002-3

6 (55%) NN: 1884-5, 1911-2, 1918-9, 1919-20, 1941-2, 1986-7

2 (18%) AN: 1951-2, 2018-9

 So after BN Octs El Niño winters were 78% BN, 22% NN, and 0% AN. Thus, BN El Niño winters have been favored after BN Octobers.

 So after AN Octs El Niño winters were 27% BN, 55% NN, and 18% AN. Thus, NN El Niño winters have been favored over each of the other categories after AN Octobers.

 All 7 El Nino Octobers colder than 65F were followed by BN winters.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, Terpeast said:

Those charts don’t really make physical sense to me. Maybe just a wavelength shift by season? I saw some interesting correlations between a cold Oct / warm Nov and a cold winter, and vice versa. Think it was GaWx who posted that.

It’s a bit of an October reversal like we see with the MJO 4-6 being colder in October than the winter. 

[GaWx]

 Regarding the continued cooling of WPac SST anomalies N of Australia (120-160E, 15N to 15S), I asked meteorologist Brad Harvey this:

“Hey Brad,

 It looks like even further cooling of this WPac area you've been watching when looking at September of 2023 vs prior Septembers (cooler Sep 2023 anomaly vs anomaly for Aug 2023). When keeping in mind the much warmer Nino 4 just to its east in Sept vs prior Septembers, does this imply an increased chance for a colder E US winter vs recent winters?”

 This is his response:

“For the WPac. Yes, appears to be cooling quite a bit. At face value, this could have a colder implication for the Eastern US in winter, as tropical convection is not over warm MJO phases around Indonesia but could be farther east near or to the east of the International Dateline which tends to be a colder position. That said, 2015-16 is a good example of a full basin strong El Nino with cooler waters in the west Pacific than we have now, and that was a record warm winter.”

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

I was just going to respond with this link to monthly NAO back to 1950. I’ve already back tested it and have found there’s been no correlation of a -NAO in Oct to a -NAO in the subsequent DJF. Anyone could look at this data and determine this quickly. If one would look in the table, they’d see many examples of a -NAO in Oct followed by a neutral NAO or +NAO in DJF. This is similar to the lack of correlation between a summer -NAO and the subsequent winter -NAO.

 Of course there being no correlation of Oct -NAO and DJF -NAO doesn’t at all mean there can’t be a -NAO for DJF. It just means that having a -NAO in Oct doesn’t at all increase that chance.

The best October correlation that I have found since 2010 only works during La Ninas. The stronger MJO 4-6 Octobers during La Ninas had better seasonal snowfall around NYC. It’s a shorter period than we like to use for correlations but I got lucky using it during the the fall of 2020 in one of the old threads. 

 

 

[MJO812]

[raindancewx]

The El Ninos I like for winter generally have the start of October cold snap in the same place as this year. I take that as a good sign. Although some of the other El Ninos do too - 1976, 2002 for instance. But 1951, 1953, 1976, 1982, 2002 are all decent for October so far. Will change obviously.

Fairly normal -PDO look so far. The +20-25 in Minnesota is certainly in the right spot - and it's hard to imagine it burning off by 10/31, which means the correlation will be "right". Minneapolis is still +15 or something through 10/5. All remaining days would need to be colder than -3 v. averages there just to go back to average.

Also, the Euro plume for Nino 3.4 has backed off some more. More likely than not it won't get to +2.0C in any given month now. I still like +1.5C (28.0C) for winter, but I could see 1.7C or something too.

[Terpeast]

3.4 coming back up, made up almost half of the big Sept drop.

Was glad to see the MEI come in at 0.6, which is what I expected. Next reading will probably be around 0.75 as long as 3.4 holds around 1.5 or so  

 

[GaWx]

3 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

3.4 coming back up, made up almost half of the big Sept drop.

Was glad to see the MEI come in at 0.6, which is what I expected. Next reading will probably be around 0.75 as long as 3.4 holds around 1.5 or so  

 

For some reason, OISST is stuck on Oct 3rd.

[mitchnick]

10 hours ago, bluewave said:

The weaker Aleutian low has become a common theme with the persistent La Niña background state following the WPAC warm pool expansion.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1002264

Wang and co-authors examined 20 La Niña events from 1920-2022 to investigate the fundamental reasons behind the historic change of the multiyear La Niña. Some long-lasting La Niñas occurred after a super El Niño, which the researchers expected due to the massive discharge of heat from the upper-ocean following an El Niño. However, three recent multiyear La Niña episodes (2007–08, 2010–11, and 2020–22) did not follow this pattern. 

They discovered these events are fueled by warming in the western Pacific Ocean and steep gradients in sea surface temperature from the western to central Pacific.

“Warming in the western Pacific triggers the rapid onset and persistence of these events,” said Wang. “Additionally, our study revealed that multiyear La Niña are distinguished from single-year La Niña by a conspicuous onset rate, which foretells its accumulative intensity and climate impacts.”

Results from complex computer simulations of climate support the observed link between multiyear La Niña events and western Pacific warming.

The new findings shed light on the factors conducive to escalating extreme La Niña in a future warming world. More multiyear La Niña events will exacerbate adverse impacts on communities around the globe, if the western Pacific continues to warm relative to the central Pacific.

“Our perception moves beyond the current notion that links extreme El Niño and La Niña to the eastern Pacific warming and attributes the increasing extreme El Niño and La Niña to different sources,” Wang added. “The knowledge gained from our study offers emergent constraints to reduce the uncertainties in projecting future changes of extreme La Niña, which may help us better prepare for what lies ahead.”

 

 

 

You said:

"The new findings shed light on the factors conducive to escalating extreme La Niña in a future warming world. More multiyear La Niña events will exacerbate adverse impacts on communities around the globe, if the western Pacific continues to warm relative to the central Pacific."

But doesn't that presuppose that Niñas aren't, in fact, causing/participating in feeding the warming? And if the warming western Pacific is the  likely cause for multi-year Niñas, what evidence, if you know, is the cause of the warming?

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, mitchnick said:

You said:

"The new findings shed light on the factors conducive to escalating extreme La Niña in a future warming world. More multiyear La Niña events will exacerbate adverse impacts on communities around the globe, if the western Pacific continues to warm relative to the central Pacific."

But doesn't that presuppose that Niñas aren't, in fact, causing/participating in feeding the warming? And if the warming western Pacific is the  likely cause for multi-year Niñas, what evidence, if you know, is the cause of the warming?

I don’t know if it is just for the short term or not, but a large portion of the tropical W Pac (15N to 15S, 120-160E) is actually significantly cooler than the last 3 years at this time (~0.7 to 0.8C cooler) while the central and E eq Pacific is much warmer as we know.

[so_whats_happening]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

I don’t know if it is just for the short term or not, but a large portion of the tropical W Pac (15N to 15S, 120-160E) is actually significantly cooler than the last 3 years at this time (~0.7 to 0.8C cooler) while the central and E eq Pacific is much warmer as we know.

I guess it really is up to what source you use to detect changes in anomalies. CRW is rather warm while CDAS is rather cool in that region. It should become cooler than the last few years as the heat and subsurface warmth have shifted east, which is typical from Nina to Nino transition. 

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.91-20.ascii

In comparing years in similar time for region 4

1982:

Sept 29.09 (+.33)

Oct 29.44(+.67)

Nov 29.27(+.57)

1997:

Sept 29.44(+.68)

Oct 29.34(+.58)

Nov 29.39(+.69)

2015:

Sept 29.82(+1.06)

Oct 29.84(+1.08)

Nov 30.13(+1.44)

2023: 

Sept 29.84(+1.08)

You can see that over time the warmer waters have indeed stayed further west inhibiting probably full connection in Super events of more recent as Im sure you would see this in other strengths of Strong, Moderate, and even Weak. That is the competing factor issue. The eastern portions during this time were much higher in the three events (might be on par now with 2015 in region 1+2) and Im sure if we compared the areas in the east we would get somewhat similar increases in ocean temps relative to the average at those given times but the anomalies would probably differ by quite a bit. Probably the only surprising thing with this so far has been the massive warm up that took place in 1+2 at the beginning of the event, 1+2 typically have the warmest time as the Nino decays. The only other event that I have seen with such a big warm-up in 1+2 before the other regions was 1997 so I can see where the comparison for that comes from.

Why we are not getting more cooling in the far western Pacific is beyond me honestly and definitely needs to be a study interest and hopefully some more information comes out about this over the years. When comparing SST's across the three events Region3,3.4, and 4 were much closer together temp wise which definitely makes it easier to have a much further push east of -VP, the difference was around 1-1.5C between region 4 and 3 with a much smaller difference in comparison of 3.4 and 4. 2015 at one point had almost a 2-2.5C difference between region 3 and 4 and nearly 1C difference between 4 and 3.4.

So far for September (until we get more months in) the difference between 3 and 4 is nearly 3C and the difference of 3.4 and 4 is about 1.5C that is quite the gap to close and would mean we either cool nino4, which doesn't seem too likely as of now, or we warm 3.4 up quite dramatically to be able to a have better shift in -VP over more of the central/eastern Pac regions instead of west of the Dateline.

Looks like we just have to wait for the results but would favor a further west -VP staying as it has all spring and summer even with the +IOD as it sits.

[so_whats_happening]

Also I did want to mention Im not sure the +IOD plays a factor in the strengthening of an El Nino. I believe it is more a thing that happens because the El nino is occurring much in the same way the PDO tends to change with an El Nino it can get strong or flip but it doesn't necessarily rely on the strength of the Nino to do so, I hope that makes sense.

We had one of the largest +IOD events in the last 20 or so years back in 2019-20(+3.4 in Dec) the year ended up neutral, it may have offset the cooling that was happening so we did not have an even more extensive La Nina event but that is a big maybe, then we had back in 2015 (+1.41 in Nov) during the super the values were nearly half that of what occurred in 19/20. Before 2015 the last large spike besides 97/98(+4.08 Dec) was 2006/07 (+2.15) where we made it to upper end weak status.

Back in 2009/10 we barely had a noticeable +IOD went to about +1 towards the end of the event (+.89 in Feb) and that was considered a strong year.

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/overlay-iod/

Unfortunately this only goes to 1993 unless others have a monthly database to get IOD data.

[GaWx]

50 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

I guess it really is up to what source you use to detect changes in anomalies. CRW is rather warm while CDAS is rather cool in that region. It should become cooler than the last few years as the heat and subsurface warmth have shifted east, which is typical from Nina to Nino transition. 

In comparing years in similar time for region 4

1982:

Sept 29.09 (+.33)

Oct 29.44(+.67)

Nov 29.27(+.57)

1997:

Sept 29.44(+.68)

Oct 29.34(+.58)

Nov 29.39(+.69)

2015:

Sept 29.82(+1.06)

Oct 29.84(+1.08)

Nov 30.13(+1.44)

2023: 

Sept 29.84(+1.08)

You can see that over time the warmer waters have indeed stayed further west inhibiting probably full connection in Super events of more recent as Im sure you would see this in other strengths of Strong, Moderate, and even Weak. That is the competing factor issue. The eastern portions during this time were much higher in the three events (might be on par now with 2015 in region 1+2) and Im sure if we compared the areas in the east we would get somewhat similar increases in ocean temps relative to the average at those given times but the anomalies would probably differ by quite a bit. Probably the only surprising thing with this so far has been the massive warm up that took place in 1+2 at the beginning of the event, 1+2 typically have the warmest time as the Nino decays. The only other event that I have seen with such a big warm-up in 1+2 before the other regions was 1997 so I can see where the comparison for that comes from.

Why we are not getting more cooling in the far western Pacific is beyond me honestly and definitely needs to be a study interest and hopefully some more information comes out about this over the years. When comparing SST's across the three events Region3,3.4, and 4 were much closer together temp wise which definitely makes it easier to have a much further push east of -VP, the difference was around 1-1.5C between region 4 and 3 with a much smaller difference in comparison of 3.4 and 4. 2015 at one point had almost a 2-2.5C difference between region 3 and 4 and nearly 1C difference between 4 and 3.4.

So far for September (until we get more months in) the difference between 3 and 4 is nearly 3C and the difference of 3.4 and 4 is about 1.5C that is quite the gap to close and would mean we either cool nino4, which doesn't seem too likely as of now, or we warm 3.4 up quite dramatically to be able to a have better shift in -VP over more of the central/eastern Pac regions instead of west of the Dateline.

Looks like we just have to wait for the results but would favor a further west -VP staying as it has all spring and summer even with the +IOD as it sits.

It is from here:

https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
 
 I was told about this site by a pro-met, who closely follows tropical WPac SST anomalies via this site. 
 The following post has animation that also shows the tropical WPac cooling:

 

[so_whats_happening]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

It is from here:

https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
 
 I was told about this site by a pro-met, who closely follows tropical WPac SST anomalies via this site. 
 The following post has animation that also shows the tropical WPac cooling:

 

Gotcha I have not used that before so ill have to check it out then.

I would like to see a stronger response to a cooling WPAC, in 97 we saw a much more widespread WPAC cooling take place from mid to late summer through fall, I tried to get as best to get monthly differences. When the +IOD collapsed around November into December things rapidly warmed in the WPAC thus starting the demise of the Nino. Now not everything plays out in the same manner but I would like to see much more negative anomalies abound otherwise we may be getting close to peak of +IOD in the next month? which may not allow the El Nino to set off another solid WWB event due to warming of waters that would take place because of a collapsed +IOD. Also take a look at the Atlantic I think that dichotomy is an important factor in all of this as we saw with the La Nina over the last 3 years where we had an "El Nino" Atlantic. Unfortunately do not have images like this past 1996

It is going to be a very interesting month to see how things shake out.

[bluewave]

8 hours ago, mitchnick said:

You said:

"The new findings shed light on the factors conducive to escalating extreme La Niña in a future warming world. More multiyear La Niña events will exacerbate adverse impacts on communities around the globe, if the western Pacific continues to warm relative to the central Pacific."

But doesn't that presuppose that Niñas aren't, in fact, causing/participating in feeding the warming? And if the warming western Pacific is the  likely cause for multi-year Niñas, what evidence, if you know, is the cause of the warming?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5edf/meta

The Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) has warmed and expanded substantially over the past decades, which has significantly affected the hydrological cycle and global climate system. It is unclear how the IPWP will change in the future under anthropogenic (ANT) forcing. Here, we quantify the human contribution to the observed IPWP warming/expansion and adjust the projected IPWP changes using an optimal fingerprinting method based on Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) simulations. We find that more than 95% rapid warming and 85% expansion of the observed IPWP are detected and attributable to human influence. Furthermore, human activities affect IPWP warming through both greenhouse gases and ANT aerosols. The multiple model ensemble mean can capture the ANT warming trend and tends to underestimate the ANT warming trend. After using the observation constraint, the IPWP warming is projected to increase faster than that of the ensemble mean in the 21st Century, and the Indian Ocean warm pool is projected to expand more than previously expected. The rapid warming and expansion of IPWP over the rest of the 21st century will impact the climate system and the life of human beings.

 

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5edf/meta

The Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) has warmed and expanded substantially over the past decades, which has significantly affected the hydrological cycle and global climate system. It is unclear how the IPWP will change in the future under anthropogenic (ANT) forcing. Here, we quantify the human contribution to the observed IPWP warming/expansion and adjust the projected IPWP changes using an optimal fingerprinting method based on Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) simulations. We find that more than 95% rapid warming and 85% expansion of the observed IPWP are detected and attributable to human influence. Furthermore, human activities affect IPWP warming through both greenhouse gases and ANT aerosols. The multiple model ensemble mean can capture the ANT warming trend and tends to underestimate the ANT warming trend. After using the observation constraint, the IPWP warming is projected to increase faster than that of the ensemble mean in the 21st Century, and the Indian Ocean warm pool is projected to expand more than previously expected. The rapid warming and expansion of IPWP over the rest of the 21st century will impact the climate system and the life of human beings.

 

Yeah, well, I  don't buy that. I have some real problems with everybody thinking weather models of one sort or another, are correct. I'll stop right there to avoid any further debate as I  understand others may disagree. 

[MJO812]

4 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Yeah, well, I  don't buy that. I have some real problems with everybody thinking weather models of one sort or another, are correct. I'll stop right there to avoid any further debate as I  understand others may disagree. 

In the last 2 winters , long range forecasts have been wrong . I know it's a skill but I think we should wait until November for any predictions .

[snowman19]

Paul Roundy: “As is often the case in El Niño events during Northern Fall, a subseasonal westerly event transitions the east Pacific from easterly anomalies to westerly anomalies. This signal will strengthen the east Pacific nature of this event.” @so_whats_happening