El Nino 2023-2024

[Itryatgolf70]

8 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

I have a feeling that they don't really dig as deep into this stuff as we do, and just lean on nino climatology by default. And they're usually not that far off the mark.

Makes me wonder whether factoring in the spaghetti soup of teleconnections is, for lack of a more polite term, a waste of time. (I'm guilty of this too)

I really believe the models for November will be very telling on our ultimate likelihood of winter imo

[Daniel Boone]

9 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

I have a feeling that they don't really dig as deep into this stuff as we do, and just lean on nino climatology by default. And they're usually not that far off the mark.

Makes me wonder whether factoring in the spaghetti soup of teleconnections is, for lack of a more polite term, a waste of time. (I'm guilty of this too)

Yeah, know what ur saying brother. I hadn't looked at it until just a few minutes ago. A little off from being canonical Nino Climo on their Temperature map. More warmth in the upper SE. No below average anywhere, even deep South, just equal chances.. Per usual for them however. 

[Daniel Boone]

6 minutes ago, Itryatgolf70 said:

I really believe the models for November will be very telling on our ultimate likelihood of winter imo

I think it's going to come down to the MJO and HLB to whether we see basically canonical moderate to strong Nino conditions or a more colder snowier outcome. The Models may not pick up on that very well as ENSO is heavily weighed in them and HLB isn't as it's harder to pick up on and predict as we all know. 

[George001]

2 hours ago, Looking to the skies said:

Ok Guys

I am just seeking some understanding on something. How are NOAA calling for a record El Nino and others calling for a weak with the same data to work with? 
is it true we are at .06 now? That is a very weak, nothing like the 2.5 of 2015. 
 

I am just trying to understand. I would hate to believe an individual would trade their knowledge ( on either side of a cause ) for an agenda.  It is hard for me to grasp such a wide prognostication on the same data. 

The people calling for a weak El Niño are incorrect. We have a well coupled moderate strength El Niño right now, so it makes so sense to forecast a weak event. NOAA doesn’t only use one index, they use several different indexes and all of them reflect El Niño conditions. The most recent tri monthly value is 1.3, which is far from a weak event. The most recent report mentions that the key atmospheric indicators they look at (ONI, SOI index, subsurface etc) all reflect a well coupled El Niño, which is expected considering we are currently in a moderate El Niño. This is different than the 2018-2019 event that struggled to couple. The most recent IRI report is in agreement with NOAA, it explicitly states that the key oceanic and atmospheric conditions are consistent with a moderate El Niño. The only way this ends up being a weak event would be if it already peaked and begins rapidly weakening the next couple of months, and there is nothing to support that happening. Both climatology and guidance argue for further strengthening of the El Niño over the next couple of months.

[George001]

NOAA isn’t calling for a record event like 2015-2016. They are calling for a strong one though, they saying there is a 75-85% chance this El Niño reaches the strong threshold, and a 30% chance it becomes a super event. That seems reasonable based on the current conditions.

[snowman19]

We are going into a very solid period of Nino strengthening….

[GaWx]

 Going back to 1951-2, I can’t find a single El Niño analog to the upcoming moderate+ El Niño, -QBO (30mb), and +IOD winter. The closest may be 1972-3 as it was a moderate+ with +IOD. It had a -QBO that was still solid in Dec but it rose rapidly and was already neutral by late Jan.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Tonga paper had a pretty sizable regional ++ ridging tendency in this area in model years 2-7. Might be a player here.

So now Tonga is supposed to enhance blocking?

[snowman19]

So now Tonga is supposed to enhance blocking?

Like you said, you can find studies that will say that the earth is flat, up is down and down is up, black is white and white is black.

All the studies I’ve seen suggest that arctic/polar stratospheric water vapor (Hunga Tonga) results in a cold stratosphere and a strong SPV, I’m sure you can find studies that will completely contradict that and say it causes the weakest SPV in history and an inferno stratosphere

See here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL103855

[Looking to the skies]

4 hours ago, George001 said:

The people calling for a weak El Niño are incorrect. We have a well coupled moderate strength El Niño right now, so it makes so sense to forecast a weak event. NOAA doesn’t only use one index, they use several different indexes and all of them reflect El Niño conditions. The most recent tri monthly value is 1.3, which is far from a weak event. The most recent report mentions that the key atmospheric indicators they look at (ONI, SOI index, subsurface etc) all reflect a well coupled El Niño, which is expected considering we are currently in a moderate El Niño. This is different than the 2018-2019 event that struggled to couple. The most recent IRI report is in agreement with NOAA, it explicitly states that the key oceanic and atmospheric conditions are consistent with a moderate El Niño. The only way this ends up being a weak event would be if it already peaked and begins rapidly weakening the next couple of months, and there is nothing to support that happening. Both climatology and guidance argue for further strengthening of the El Niño over the next couple of months.

Again

You just contradicted what many other Mets have very recently said. They are saying there is plenty to support the data they are using. MEI of .06 and the indicators are just as strong and are similar to 2009-10, 1983, 1987, 2014 and others 

[mitchnick]

2 hours ago, Looking to the skies said:

Again

You just contradicted what many other Mets have very recently said. They are saying there is plenty to support the data they are using. MEI of .06 and the indicators are just as strong and are similar to 2009-10, 1983, 1987, 2014 and others 

MEI is .60. Don't know if that was a typo or incorrect info.

[MJO812]

4 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

So now Tonga is supposed to enhance blocking?

I have seen many forecasts with Tonga involved. 

[bluewave]

6 hours ago, snowman19 said:

Like you said, you can find studies that will say that the earth is flat, up is down and down is up, black is white and white is black.

All the studies I’ve seen suggest that arctic/polar stratospheric water vapor (Hunga Tonga) results in a cold stratosphere and a strong SPV, I’m sure you can find studies that will completely contradict that and say it causes the weakest SPV in history and an inferno stratosphere

See here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL103855

The paper had an increase in PNA blocking only during the winter and not NAO blocking. The eruption was in January 2022. So 3-7 years wouldn’t be be until next winter. But it’s just one study so we’ll have to see if the winter PNA blocking increases in 24-25. So the record blocking over Canada since May is probably related to the general increase in these stuck 500 mb ridges in recent years and not the volcanic eruption.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/19/2023 at 8:37 AM, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Overattribution can go both ways, too....you can incorporate easterly QBO without forecasting a 1995-1996 style seasonal blocking.

so more like a one big storm kind of el nino winter?

a la 1982-83 or 2015-16?

 

[Volcanic Winter]

I just want to remind that HTHH is the only eruption in recorded history to be both of VEI 6 (Pinatubo) size and have its primary atmospheric pollutant be water vapor. Every eruption of similar size that has been studied has had a very different gas composition. 

It’s not hyperbole to say this is uncharted territory, and we’ll likely be learning in real time what the impact of that much water vapor will be. 

Maybe it will ultimately be of small or inconsequential impact, perhaps it will be larger. In my personal opinion a retrospective analysis will be more useful than any one study trying to predict the next several years. The most important point is that I would caution against comparing 2022+ to any other known volcanic years in recent history as they’ll ultimately have very little in common. Even at the highest SO2 calculations I’ve seen estimated, it’s still far below El Chichon in the early 80’s - and even if there were any impact from typical volcanic aerosols, it’d be fading rapidly this year. 

[LibertyBell]

15 minutes ago, Volcanic Winter said:

I just want to remind that HTHH is the only eruption in recorded history to be both of VEI 6 (Pinatubo) size and have its primary atmospheric pollutant be water vapor. Every eruption of similar size that has been studied has had a very different gas composition. 

It’s not hyperbole to say this is uncharted territory, and we’ll likely be learning in real time what the impact of that much water vapor will be. 

Maybe it will ultimately be of small or inconsequential impact, perhaps it will be larger. In my personal opinion a retrospective analysis will be more useful than any one study trying to predict the next several years. The most important point is that I would caution against comparing 2022+ to any other known volcanic years in recent history as they’ll ultimately have very little in common. Even at the highest SO2 calculations I’ve seen estimated, it’s still far below El Chichon in the early 80’s - and even if there were any impact from typical volcanic aerosols, it’d be fading rapidly this year. 

and these volcanoes are very finicky in impact, it's not like el chichon gave us a lot of snow or cold either

and neither did pinatubo except for that one summer

 

[Volcanic Winter]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

and these volcanoes are very finicky in impact, it's not like el chichon gave us a lot of snow or cold either

and neither did pinatubo except for that one summer

 

Regional impacts vary, that’s pretty standard with this stuff. Pinatubo had a very notable decrease to surface temperatures overall, even if region to region impacts had lots of variation.  

There’s a study disputing the impact of the largest known eruption of the past 100k years (Toba supereruption 75kya), because climate proxy data from a lakebed in Africa didn’t show much of a change from the norm. 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, Volcanic Winter said:

Regional impacts vary, that’s pretty standard with this stuff. Pinatubo had a very notable decrease to surface temperatures overall, even if region to region impacts had lots of variation.  

There’s a study disputing the impact of the largest known eruption of the past 100k years (Toba supereruption 75kya), because climate proxy data from a lakebed in Africa didn’t show much of a change from the norm. 

For us Pinatubo seems to have had its greatest impact in the summer-- 1992 had a very rainy and cool summer sandwiched between a very hot 1991 and very hot 1993 summer

Dont know if the influence of Pinatubo somehow came back for the 1993-94 winter

[Itryatgolf70]

It will change, but it looks somewhat better currently 

[bluewave]

21 minutes ago, Itryatgolf70 said:

https://x.com/WorldClimateSvc/status/1715392321112449438?s=20 

Probably won't last but noticeably lower than earlier in terms of less negative

That is a very nice rise. We just need a decent cold pool and Aleutian low north or northwest Hawaii to push back against the tendency for too strong an Aleutian ridge. We want the El Niño to be the primary driver of the pattern. This way even if the winter continues the warmer theme of recent years, a juiced STJ can deliver better snowfall than last winter.

 

[snowman19]

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, Itryatgolf70 said:

It will change, but it looks somewhat better currently 

 Whereas SST charts near Japan suggest a significant PDO rise has occurred, which I strongly believe, I still would recommend caution before accepting this from WCS as accurate, especially after a rise of 2.3 in just 2.5 weeks. WCS appears to be a private co. as opposed to governmental fwiw.

I use this from NOAA for monthly PDO: 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
 

 Looking at the monthlies, WCS has been much less negative than NOAA:

-Jan is ~-0.75 per WCS graph while NOAA is -1.25

-Feb is ~-0.8 per WCS vs -1.65 per NOAA

-Mar is ~-1.3 per WCS vs -2.45 per NOAA.

-Apr ~-2 WCS vs -3.07 NOAA.

-May/Jun ~-1.5 WCS vs -2.42/-2.53 NOAA.

-Jul ~-1.75 WCS vs -2.52 NOAA

-Aug ~-1.6 WCS vs -2.46 NOAA

-Sep ~-2.25 WCS vs -2.94 NOAA

 So, on average, WCS has been coming in at ~63% of NOAA. But they have been mostly moving in the same direction from month to month. Thus, NOAA has very likely also risen substantially so far this month and thus it wouldn’t shock me if it comes in near -1.5 for Oct vs Sept’s -2.94.

[George001]

10 hours ago, Looking to the skies said:

Again

You just contradicted what many other Mets have very recently said. They are saying there is plenty to support the data they are using. MEI of .06 and the indicators are just as strong and are similar to 2009-10, 1983, 1987, 2014 and others 

2009-2010 was a strong El Niño. 87-88 was weird, it peaked strong but weakened rapidly after that. It ended up being a moderate nino during the winter. By 1983 do you mean 83-84 or 82-83? 83-84 was a la nina so that’s not a good analog, but 8 did see some mentions of 82-83 being a good analog. 82-83 was a super nino so that makes sense. Does it mean winter is going to necessarily be bad? No, it all depends on where you live. The mid Atlantic does well in stronger ninos like this one, so a good winter in say DC-NYC is a very realistic outcome. There is nothing weak about this El Niño though.

[Itryatgolf70]

38 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Whereas SST charts near Japan suggest a significant PDO rise has occurred, which I strongly believe, I still would recommend caution before accepting this from WCS as accurate, especially after a rise of 2.3 in just 2.5 weeks. WCS appears to be a private co. as opposed to governmental fwiw.

I use this from NOAA for monthly PDO: 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
 

 Looking at the monthlies, WCS has been much less negative than NOAA:

-Jan is ~-0.75 per WCS graph while NOAA is -1.25

-Feb is ~-0.8 per WCS vs -1.65 per NOAA

-Mar is ~-1.3 per WCS vs -2.45 per NOAA.

-Apr ~-2 WCS vs -3.07 NOAA.

-May/Jun ~-1.5 WCS vs -2.42/-2.53 NOAA.

-Jul ~-1.75 WCS vs -2.52 NOAA

-Aug ~-1.6 WCS vs -2.46 NOAA

-Sep ~-2.25 WCS vs -2.94 NOAA

 So, on average, WCS has been coming in at ~63% of NOAA. But they have been mostly moving in the same direction from month to month. Thus, NOAA has very likely also risen substantially so far this month and thus it wouldn’t shock me if it comes in near -1.5 for Oct vs Sept’s -2.94.

Keep in mind larry that we have a pretty intense niño ongoing and it would make sense for those numbers to be half-way accurate imo. As you know, we don't really want too negative PDO for winter if that would help us

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 Whereas SST charts near Japan suggest a significant PDO rise has occurred, which I strongly believe, I still would recommend caution before accepting this from WCS as accurate, especially after a rise of 2.3 in just 2.5 weeks. WCS appears to be a private co. as opposed to governmental fwiw.

I use this from NOAA for monthly PDO: 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
 

 Looking at the monthlies, WCS has been much less negative than NOAA:

-Jan is ~-0.75 per WCS graph while NOAA is -1.25

-Feb is ~-0.8 per WCS vs -1.65 per NOAA

-Mar is ~-1.3 per WCS vs -2.45 per NOAA.

-Apr ~-2 WCS vs -3.07 NOAA.

-May/Jun ~-1.5 WCS vs -2.42/-2.53 NOAA.

-Jul ~-1.75 WCS vs -2.52 NOAA

-Aug ~-1.6 WCS vs -2.46 NOAA

-Sep ~-2.25 WCS vs -2.94 NOAA

 So, on average, WCS has been coming in at ~63% of NOAA. But they have been mostly moving in the same direction from month to month. Thus, NOAA has very likely also risen substantially so far this month and thus it wouldn’t shock me if it comes in near -1.5 for Oct vs Sept’s -2.94.

I believe the WCS daily PDO updates are based on mantua PDO index and not the NOAA PDO index. So each version of the index varies from the other. Plus the key area north and NW of Hawaii is what matters for our sensible weather rather than the absolute PDO values. But when the are aligned like last winter into spring we had the strongly coupled -PDO trough in the West.

[csnavywx]

12 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

So now Tonga is supposed to enhance blocking?

https://essopenarchive.org/users/304243/articles/657090-long-term-surface-impact-of-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-like-stratospheric-water-vapor-injection

I believe this was a topic of discussion back in May ITT. Global effects small, but regionally could have an impact.

[snowman19]

 Whereas SST charts near Japan suggest a significant PDO rise has occurred, which I strongly believe, I still would recommend caution before accepting this from WCS as accurate, especially after a rise of 2.3 in just 2.5 weeks. WCS appears to be a private co. as opposed to governmental fwiw.
I use this from NOAA for monthly PDO: 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat
 
 Looking at the monthlies, WCS has been much less negative than NOAA:
-Jan is ~-0.75 per WCS graph while NOAA is -1.25
-Feb is ~-0.8 per WCS vs -1.65 per NOAA
-Mar is ~-1.3 per WCS vs -2.45 per NOAA.
-Apr ~-2 WCS vs -3.07 NOAA.
-May/Jun ~-1.5 WCS vs -2.42/-2.53 NOAA.
-Jul ~-1.75 WCS vs -2.52 NOAA
-Aug ~-1.6 WCS vs -2.46 NOAA
-Sep ~-2.25 WCS vs -2.94 NOAA
 So, on average, WCS has been coming in at ~63% of NOAA. But they have been mostly moving in the same direction from month to month. Thus, NOAA has very likely also risen substantially so far this month and thus it wouldn’t shock me if it comes in near -1.5 for Oct vs Sept’s -2.94.

Have you seen an OISST update for Nino 3.4 anywhere? It’s stuck on 10/17 on cyclonicwx. Just read a tweet saying it’s up over +1.83C on OISST but I can’t confirm that. It did jump well over +1.7C on CRW

[roardog]

11 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Have you seen an OISST update for Nino 3.4 anywhere? It’s stuck on 10/17 on cyclonicwx. Just read a tweet saying it’s up over +1.83C on OISST but I can’t confirm that. It did jump well over +1.7C on CRW

It’s updated on Cyclonicwx. It’s at 1.69 today.

[40/70 Benchmark]

16 hours ago, George001 said:

The people calling for a weak El Niño are incorrect. We have a well coupled moderate strength El Niño right now, so it makes so sense to forecast a weak event. NOAA doesn’t only use one index, they use several different indexes and all of them reflect El Niño conditions. The most recent tri monthly value is 1.3, which is far from a weak event. The most recent report mentions that the key atmospheric indicators they look at (ONI, SOI index, subsurface etc) all reflect a well coupled El Niño, which is expected considering we are currently in a moderate El Niño. This is different than the 2018-2019 event that struggled to couple. The most recent IRI report is in agreement with NOAA, it explicitly states that the key oceanic and atmospheric conditions are consistent with a moderate El Niño. The only way this ends up being a weak event would be if it already peaked and begins rapidly weakening the next couple of months, and there is nothing to support that happening. Both climatology and guidance argue for further strengthening of the El Niño over the next couple of months.

It's not well coupled. Period.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, csnavywx said:

https://essopenarchive.org/users/304243/articles/657090-long-term-surface-impact-of-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-like-stratospheric-water-vapor-injection

I believe this was a topic of discussion back in May ITT. Global effects small, but regionally could have an impact.

I don't feel it's going to have much of any impact.