El Nino 2023-2024

[so_whats_happening]

1 minute ago, GaWx said:

 I’ll come back to comparisons to past El Niños later. But I’m first asking you to compare Nov 3-7 of 2023 to June of 2023, which is what I showed in my post done ~45 minutes ago. The Nov 3-7 depth chart showing 100W to 180 from 0 to 300m is significantly warmer overall than that for June. The only portion that was cooler on the Nov 3-7 is 100-120W in the uppermost 125m, which is only ~10% of the volume. ~70% of the volume is warmer on Nov 3-7. The other ~20% is about the same. 

 How could the Nov 3-7th depth be so much warmer than June when June is by a good margin the warmest month of 2023 to date per the OHC time series graph? They don’t appear to be in synch, which is the point I’m making.

Why would the TAO be in sync with CPC they are two different sources of data, even though they are observing the same thing. It is just like looking at the differences in OISST to CRW SST's they are different while doing the same thing. If you wanna compare apples to apples use something on CPC, unless CPC has an archive somewhere that I am not aware of  this is the closest you will get to what is being portrayed back in time.

As for the differences from a monthly stand point of June to a 5 day average in November maybe it is best left to compare to another 5 day period not a month. If the month for November comes in at 1.4 similar to June then we can compare the monthly average. This is what 1.35 value on CPC page looks like in June for a 5 day average for TAO. This is what around 1.2 looks like to CPC site which updated to Nov 4th. Also a not quite as high peak in late August about 1.25 lets say

[so_whats_happening]

6 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

Why would the TAO be in sync with CPC they are two different sources of data, even though they are observing the same thing. It is just like looking at the differences in OISST to CRW SST's they are different while doing the same thing. If you wanna compare apples to apples use something on CPC, unless CPC has an archive somewhere that I am not aware of  this is the closest you will get to what is being portrayed back in time.

As for the differences from a monthly stand point of June to a 5 day average in November maybe it is best left to compare to another 5 day period not a month. If the month for November comes in at 1.4 similar to June then we can compare the monthly average. This is what 1.35 value on CPC page looks like in June for a 5 day average for TAO. This is what around 1.2 looks like to CPC site which updated to Nov 4th. Also a not quite as high peak in late August about 1.25 lets say

This was the CPC update for Nov 4th which is the latest the OHC is likely updated until.

[Great Snow 1717]

2 hours ago, George001 said:

I was on board with a historic super nino too, but the data doesn’t support that anymore. The ONI graph in particular is misleading, as the 2023 El Niño event began diverging from the super events after September. 82-83, 97-98, and 15-16 all were above 2.0 by now. Right now it’s evolving more like a slightly stronger version of 57-58 than the super events. Don’t get me wrong, this nino is far from weak. It’s looking more like a +1.8-1.9 peak than a +2.3 or higher though.

a lot of people are setting themselves to be disappointed once again.....

[GaWx]

34 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

Why would the TAO be in sync with CPC they are two different sources of data, even though they are observing the same thing. It is just like looking at the differences in OISST to CRW SST's they are different while doing the same thing. If you wanna compare apples to apples use something on CPC, unless CPC has an archive somewhere that I am not aware of  this is the closest you will get to what is being portrayed back in time.

As for the differences from a monthly stand point of June to a 5 day average in November maybe it is best left to compare to another 5 day period not a month. If the month for November comes in at 1.4 similar to June then we can compare the monthly average. This is what 1.35 value on CPC page looks like in June for a 5 day average for TAO. This is what around 1.2 looks like to CPC site which updated to Nov 4th. Also a not quite as high peak in late August about 1.25 lets say

 So, we seem to agree that TAO and CPC aren’t in sync. Looking at the 5 day periods you just posted in the portion down to 300m (which is the portion that both the monthly NOAA table and the time series graph both pertain to), Oct 30-Nov 3 is overall warmer than June 17-21. The only portion that is cooler is 100-120W. 
 
 Here’s the latest, Nov 4-8. Based on eyeballing estimates, I don’t see how the weighted average of 100-180W, 0-300 m (all of this graph except the leftmost 20 degrees) isn’t at least close to +1.50 per TAO and likely about the warmest yet this El Niño per TAO:

 

 So, if TAO is now at about its warmest for this Nino, is the true OHC now at its warmest this Nino? Shouldn’t that be considered as a realistic possibility? I assume TAO data is credible.

[mitchnick]

2 hours ago, snowman19 said:

So your forecast is this Nino has already peaked, no more warming/strengthening/coupling from here on out. The WWBs and DWKWs are not going east of the dateline and they are going to have no effect, the entire event is going the wrong way. Got it. Good luck with that. I wish you God speed with your forecast

I made no forecast. It was an observation. Obviously, you missed the words "SO FAR."

[ORH_wxman]

42 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 So, we seem to agree that TAO and CPC aren’t in sync. Looking at the 5 day periods you just posted in the portion down to 300m (which is the portion that both the monthly NOAA table and the time series graph both pertain to), Oct 30-Nov 3 is overall warmer than June 17-21. The only portion that is cooler is 100-120W. 
 
 Here’s the latest, Nov 4-8. Based on eyeballing estimates, I don’t see how the weighted average of 100-180W, 0-300 m (all of this graph except the leftmost 20 degrees) isn’t at least close to +1.50 per TAO and likely about the warmest yet this El Niño per TAO:

 

 So, if TAO is now at about its warmest for this Nino, is the true OHC now at its warmest this Nino? Shouldn’t that be considered as a realistic possibility? I assume TAO data is credible.

Does CPC use 2N to 2S as the upper equatorial OHC latitude domain? I know some datasets use 5N to 5S, so if they are different, then they wouldn't be comparing the same thing.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, so_whats_happening said:

This was the CPC update for Nov 4th which is the latest the OHC is likely updated until.

The OHC is also being limited by the WPAC warm pool still hanging on. We never got the WPAC cold pool needed to really boost the OHC east of the Dateline. We were consistently in the 1.7 to 2 range back at this time in 2015. The most recent upper ocean heat anomaly from the CPC is only around +1.15.

 

[GaWx]

47 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Does CPC use 2N to 2S as the upper equatorial OHC latitude domain? I know some datasets use 5N to 5S, so if they are different, then they wouldn't be comparing the same thing.

 This is a great question/point and possibly could cause discrepancies between sources. Whereas TAO clearly states it looks at 2N to 2S, I just looked thoroughly and I couldn’t find what either the CPC monthly OHC table or the CPC OHC time series use for the latitude domain. They really should state that. IF they use 5N to 5S, I’d think their OHC levels would be cooler than that for 2N to 2S based on my assumption that like the surface the most intense anomalies tend to be right at the equator.

 But regardless, the OHC based on 2N to 2S (100W to 180, 0 to 300m deep) per TAO appears to me to be near or at its warmest yet this Nino. If so, might 5N to 5S also be at its warmest had TAO measured it? I’d think that would be a reasonable possibility.

[stadiumwave]

Hmmm....

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Does CPC use 2N to 2S as the upper equatorial OHC latitude domain? I know some datasets use 5N to 5S, so if they are different, then they wouldn't be comparing the same thing.

I looked again and this time I got the answer regarding the CPC OHC time series graph. It is 5N to 5S per this:

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

 But, I still don’t know the answer for the very important CPC monthly OHC table. Whereas one might reasonably bet that it would also be 5N to 5S since it also from CPC, I’m not assuming that. One reason is that the tabular OHC monthlies have been coming in higher in most months in 2023 vs what the OHC time series graph has been suggesting:

 Consider, for example, June. The table has it way up at +1.40. But one can clearly see that the graph (see below) is WAY lower as its highest in June is only ~+1.35 (midmonth) and it falls to under +1.15 at the end. So, per the graph, it is ~+1.25. 
 
 Now look at April. The table has it at +1.19. But the graph only barely approaches +1.19 around April 20th. The other days are between that and +0.90. Thus, the graph is implying that April OHC was only +1.05 at most.

 So, for both April and June, the table is .~0.15 warmer than the graph suggests. That tells me that the table MIGHT not be based on 5N to 5S like is the case for the graph:

Monthly OHC:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt

 

[GaWx]

More to the above. I think I just figured out why the monthly tabular values have been coming in warmer than the graph suggests and thus it may not be due to differing latitude domains:

- The graph uses 1991-2020 as a base

- The table uses 1981-2010 as a base.

- Thus, since 1991-2020 OHC averages should be warmer than 1981-2010, the anomalies for El Niño OHCs using a 1981-2010 base should be warmer than those using a 1991-2020 base.

- Thus, that may explain why the tabular values for anomalies have been mainly higher than that suggested by the graph.

- Thus, I expect most of the upcoming tabular monthly OHC anomalies to come in warmer than the OHC graph suggests (perhaps mainly in the 0.05 to 0.20 C range).

-I still want to find out what the latitude domain is for the table.

[40/70 Benchmark]

About 75% done...has @griteaterupdated his MEI graphs after that abomination of an October value?

Shield you eyes, snowman lol

[griteater]

11 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

About 75% done...has @griteaterupdated his MEI graphs after that abomination of an October value?

Shield you eyes, snowman lol

Can do it this evening

[GaWx]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

The OHC is also being limited by the WPAC warm pool still hanging on. We never got the WPAC cold pool needed to really boost the OHC east of the Dateline. We were consistently in the 1.7 to 2 range back at this time in 2015. The most recent upper ocean heat anomaly from the CPC is only around +1.15.

 

 Regarding the bolded: Because the CPC tabular values are based on 1981-2010 and not the warmer 1991-2020 for its base, the current 100W-180 (down to 300m) equivalent OHC anomaly is more than likely now in or near the +1.3 to +1.35 range. I’m saying this because you’re referring to the +1.7 to +2.0 range back at this time in 2015, which is what the monthly table has based on 1981-2010.

[40/70 Benchmark]

28 minutes ago, griteater said:

Can do it this evening

Having an outlook this long affords one the luxury of needing to go back and update graphics that have aged a few weeks in the process of writing.

[bluewave]

15 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Regarding the bolded: Because the CPC tabular values are based on 1981-2010 and not the warmer 1991-2020 for its base, the current 100W-180 (down to 300m) equivalent OHC anomaly is more than likely now in or near the +1.3 to +1.35 range. I’m saying this because you’re referring to the +1.7 to +2.0 range back at this time in 2015, which is what the monthly table has based on 1981-2010.

The new baseline may not be that much warmer than 81-10 since the equatorial East Pacific has been one of the slowest warming parts of the Pacific.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/06/24/pacific-ocean-cold-tongue/
 

[stadiumwave]

Anyone have the stratosphere forecast graph from today's Euro Weeklies?

[brooklynwx99]

2 minutes ago, stadiumwave said:

Anyone have the stratosphere forecast graph from today's Euro Weeklies?

pretty good signal for SPV weakening into Dec

[George001]

5 hours ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

a lot of people are setting themselves to be disappointed once again.....

Agree. Whether the nino falls short of super or not, there is a very real chance the strength of the nino derails winter for snow enthusiasts in the east. 

[GaWx]

17 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

pretty good signal for SPV weakening into Dec

 It does but I am sensing that the EPS is doing some can kicking when you consider the timing.  For example, the runs from Oct 25th through Nov 2nd all had the EPS mean first go below climo between 11/30 and 12/4. Since then, it has gotten later and on today’s run it occurs on 12/12. So, I’m being cautious about this to make sure this isn’t due to a bias.

[stadiumwave]

28 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

pretty good signal for SPV weakening into Dec

 

Much better than Mondays update!

And thanks!

[WxUSAF]

40 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 It does but I am sensing that the EPS is doing some can kicking when you consider the timing.  For example, the runs from Oct 25th through Nov 2nd all had the EPS mean first go below climo between 11/30 and 12/4. Since then, it has gotten later and on today’s run it occurs on 12/12. So, I’m being cautious about this to make sure this isn’t due to a bias.

Isn’t cankicking strat warming events and disruptions pretty par for the course?  Background factors would support a SSW at some point this winter, but I’m game for vanilla below normal strat PV strength as well.

[brooklynwx99]

Just now, WxUSAF said:

Isn’t cankicking strat warming events and disruptions pretty par for the course?  Background factors would support a SSW at some point this winter, but I’m game for vanilla below normal strat PV strength as well.

a perturbed SPV would be great. SSWs can be tricky because you can have the main lobe move to Eurasia and screw us here. a perturbed vortex just makes blocking easier and more prolonged

[Terpeast]

4 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

a perturbed SPV would be great. SSWs can be tricky because you can have the main lobe move to Eurasia and screw us here. a perturbed vortex just makes blocking easier and more prolonged

Yeah, we don't want to gamble with that over just perturbing the PV. There's little support for a SSW event though, only 4 ensemble members show it

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, brooklynwx99 said:

pretty good signal for SPV weakening into Dec

People see this and spontaneously ejac.....its a long, methodical process.....and it will probably initially augment the PV in the general vicinity of the holidays.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, brooklynwx99 said:

pretty good signal for SPV weakening into Dec

F-U...leaving the one I have.

lol

[brooklynwx99]

55 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

People see this and spontaneously ejac.....its a long, methodical process.....and it will probably initially augment the PV in the general vicinity of the holidays.

then once the SPV is perturbed, that’s when you get the late Jan into Feb blocking accounting for lag

[so_whats_happening]

7 hours ago, GaWx said:

 So, we seem to agree that TAO and CPC aren’t in sync. Looking at the 5 day periods you just posted in the portion down to 300m (which is the portion that both the monthly NOAA table and the time series graph both pertain to), Oct 30-Nov 3 is overall warmer than June 17-21. The only portion that is cooler is 100-120W. 
 
 Here’s the latest, Nov 4-8. Based on eyeballing estimates, I don’t see how the weighted average of 100-180W, 0-300 m (all of this graph except the leftmost 20 degrees) isn’t at least close to +1.50 per TAO and likely about the warmest yet this El Niño per TAO:

 

 So, if TAO is now at about its warmest for this Nino, is the true OHC now at its warmest this Nino? Shouldn’t that be considered as a realistic possibility? I assume TAO data is credible.

Sure I guess we agree to disagree. I would contact CPC to know more about the formats they use but you have to also remember intensity does help compensate for areal coverage and both together add even more to the values. I wouldn't call this the warmest the event has been but again we can agree to disagree.

In June we were cracking +6 anomalies where we barely have a +5 showing up now but overall more +3 than back then.

To add onto this here was CPC Subsurface from end of June to end of August you can see the areal coverage has overall been about the same but the intensity of these pockets has waxed and waned literally the same thing that was shown on TAO. By the same argument of using the look at it approach shouldn't August have been warmer OHC wise versus June? 

Again the best thing to do would be contacting CPC to get a better idea of the domain used for their OHC graph, Im sure they would gladly help you out with that. I could maybe ask the guy I work with but he is in a different department (OPC) so he might not have a solid answer.

[griteater]

3-run trend on the Meteo France model for JFM

Aleutian Low weaker and headed west.  East coast trough farther north...+PNA pattern

This is occurring with the Meteo France among the warmest models in Nino 3.4....peaking here in NDJ at +2.59

 

[griteater]

Meteo France 3-run trend for February