El Nino 2023-2024

[ORH_wxman]

7 minutes ago, GaWx said:

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

 

The current Nino was for ERSST unrounded at +1.54 for ASO per the following link and it has already been classified as strong:

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

Yeah that seems pretty fair…1965-66 was technically just under 2.0 (but rounded up to nearest tenth)…so you can see why that one is just strong. 

[griteater]

26 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

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

Jan Null's designation requires 3 tri-monthlies for ENSO strength designation.  On his page, you can see where he designates 2009-2010 as a Moderate El Nino with the max tri-monthly peaks of 1.6 / 1.5 / 1.3 - https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm  

I like the logic in Jan's method as you want to see the strength designation sustain itself a bit just in the same way that the 0.5 threshold must be sustained in order to designate it as an El Nino in the first place (0.5 must be sustained for 5 tri-monthlies for El Niño designation, as you know)

And I've mentioned this method many months ago, so not the first time posting it.

Regardless, we have a very strong Nino that is a bit weaker than the strongest on record from an ONI standpoint

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

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

 

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

I consider 1972 as strong because I factor in MEI, as well...so if its at all close via ONI I used that to decide.

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, griteater said:

Jan Null's designation requires 3 tri-monthlies for ENSO strength designation.  On his page, you can see where he designates 2009-2010 as a Moderate El Nino with the max tri-monthly peaks of 1.6 / 1.5 / 1.3 - https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm  

I like the logic in Jan's method as you want to see the strength designation sustain itself a bit just in the same way that the 0.5 threshold must be sustained in order to designate it as an El Nino in the first place (0.5 must be sustained for 5 tri-monthlies for El Niño designation, as you know)

And I've mentioned this method many months ago, so not the first time posting it.

Regardless, we have a very strong Nino that is a bit weaker than the strongest on record from an ONI standpoint

 Why doesn’t Jan take it all the way and require five trimonthlies for strength, too? If he’s/she’s going to be 100% consistent, that’s what Jan would need to do. Why stop at just three? Is Jan requiring only three to make sure 1982-3 is classified as super? It only had three trimonthlies at +2.00+ unrounded:

  SON 1982  28.50   1.97
  OND 1982  28.70   2.18
  NDJ 1982  28.76   2.23
  DJF 1983  28.79   2.18
  JFM 1983  28.75   1.92

 
 I think Jan’s too strict. I still count 1972-3 as super as the majority of posts explicitly addressing it here have done to the best of my memory despite it having had only two trimonthlies and only two months of +2.00+. Its trimonthly peak was +2.12.

 Different strokes for different folks though consistency is of utmost importance to me.

 For those who go by NOAA, they’ve already called the current event “strong” after just one trimonth of +1.50+.

 Regardless, I feel that for the best measure of relative effects vs prior events, RONI is a better measure and it is only in low end moderate so far with +1.05 for ASO. It will rise but it is questionable whether or not it will reach strong (+1.50+ unrounded RONI) per this:

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

 There are so many different ways to look at this that it could drive us crazy! But for assessing @snowman19’s prediction, I’ll require only ONE UNROUNDED trimonthly of ERSST of +2.00+. To require more would not be fair imho. Hardly anyone else here other than @George001has expected even just one trimonthly of +2.00+. Even my own latest prediction is for a trimonthly peak of only +1.7 to +1.9 (meaning the highest and not requiring more than one within that).

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, brooklynwx99 said:

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

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

Yes. It would be even nicer to get 1 SSTA number as well. Not until this year did I even pay attention to all of them. lol

[GaWx]

The latest for Nino 3.4 is +2.16 per cyclonicwx and +2.15 per WCS. The warming is slowing for now. We’re still a good ways from a super (one trimonth of +2.00+ is my definition). A highest daily max of ~+2.40+ would probably be needed to allow for a super, which may never be reached obviously:

[stadiumwave]

 

[GaWx]

22 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

@GaWx look at this significant drop in SPV strength on the ECMWF extended compared to yesterday

Todays Euro Weeklies SPV strength update was to be a big test because of yesterday’s huge move weaker. The result is that todays not only upheld yesterday’s update, it went further throughout Dec! As of just three runs ago, the Weeklies had a strong SPV for Dec as a whole. Now it has just about the exact opposite! The EPS mean drops below climo on Dec 4th. This compares to 12/25 just three runs ago! And not that a major SSW is required for a weak SPV to result in a -AO/-NAO to become dominant, but today’s update based on the individual members implies a 20% chance of a major SSW just through the first week of January, which is about the highest yet for any run. Keep in mind that the vast majority of major SSWs occur mid Jan or later and that well under 20% of winters through Jan 7th have had a major SSW:

Today’s Euro run: weak SPV dominates Dec:

Euro from just 3 days ago: strong SPV dominates Dec:

[Terpeast]

9 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Todays Euro Weeklies SPV strength update was to be a big test because of yesterday’s huge move weaker. The result is that todays not only upheld yesterday’s update, it went further throughout Dec! As of just three runs ago, the Weeklies had a strong SPV for Dec as a whole. Now it has just about the exact opposite! The EPS mean drops below climo on Dec 4th. This compares to 12/25 just three runs ago! And not that a major SSW is required for a weak SPV to result in a -AO/-NAO to become dominant, but today’s update based on the individual members implies a 20% chance of a major SSW just through the first week of January, which is about the highest yet for any run. Keep in mind that the vast majority of major SSWs occur mid Jan or later and that well under 20% of winters through Jan 7th have had a major SSW:

Today’s Euro run: weak SPV dominates Dec:

Euro from just 3 days ago: string SPV dominates Dec:

Yeah, and I think today's model runs are responding to this change.

[40/70 Benchmark]

15 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Todays Euro Weeklies SPV strength update was to be a big test because of yesterday’s huge move weaker. The result is that todays not only upheld yesterday’s update, it went further throughout Dec! As of just three runs ago, the Weeklies had a strong SPV for Dec as a whole. Now it has just about the exact opposite! The EPS mean drops below climo on Dec 4th. This compares to 12/25 just three runs ago! And not that a major SSW is required for a weak SPV to result in a -AO/-NAO to become dominant, but today’s update based on the individual members implies a 20% chance of a major SSW just through the first week of January, which is about the highest yet for any run. Keep in mind that the vast majority of major SSWs occur mid Jan or later and that well under 20% of winters through Jan 7th have had a major SSW:

Today’s Euro run: weak SPV dominates Dec:

Euro from just 3 days ago: string SPV dominates Dec:

Makes sense to me:

The Sun and Stratosphere Collaboratively Modulate the Polar Domain

 

Research conducted by Gray et al expanded on the notion that Easterly QBO seasons are more prone to polar vortex disruptions by postulating that the timing of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSW) maybe dictated by interactions between the solar cycle and the QBO in the upper stratosphere, where increased sensitivity and solar cycle amplitude compensate for decreased QBO amplitude. "Solar and QBO signals in the upper equatorial stratosphere where the 11 year solar cycle has its maximum amplitude and the QBO has a small but not insignificant amplitude"(Gray et al 2004). The theory goes onto posit that the easterly QBO helps to establish the presence of an Aleutian high, which expedites the SSW process when superimposed over a solar minimum and results in early season SSW. This is confirmed by the research of @griteater, which reveals that 11/13 seasons featured a SSW and 6/11 SSW events in the el Nino/E QBO data set occurred by no later than January. There has been some subtle suggestion by the long range European guidance of a polar vortex (PV) disruption at some point during the month of December. However, while this is the favored outcome, any such occurrence is likely to take place around the holidays or perhaps even after the New Year and may initially be rushed and/or exaggerated by guidance.

 

 

 

Conversely, westerly QBO coupled with near solar max, which was the case in the 1991-1992 and 1994-1995 seasons, delays SSWs until late in the season if one takes place at at all, which is less likely. The el Nino + QBO data set yielded 5/7 SSWs taking place in January or later and occurred at all in only 6/13 seasons.

 

In years such as 2023, when the signals diverge (nearing solar max/E QBO), the research indicates that there is no significant impact on timing. 

 

However, the easterly QBO in conjunction with an ascending, but not yet solar max may still slightly favor a more disturbed PV during the early to middle portion of this season. 

 

DJF Disturbed PV During E QBO (Courtesy of Flis)

 

This is especially the case when considering the best potential QBO analogs this season. Analyzing the QBO data at both the 30mb and 50m level, the winter seasons of 1986-1987 and 2009-2010 stand out at as strikingly similar at both levels and each were also el Nino seasons with easterly QBO during the ascending phase of the solar cycle, as is the case in 2023. 

 

	Oct-86	Oct-09	Oct-23
30MB QBO	-9.60	-11.69	-16.98
50MB QBO	0.43	3.69	1.60

The season of 1986-1987 is of course one of the discussed basin-wide analogs and featured a major PV disruption during the month of January (Note the similarity to the DJF E QBO PV composite above) following a relatively benign month of December. 

 

[ORH_wxman]

7 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Yeah, and I think today's model runs are responding to this change.

Lot more -NAO showing up in early December than previous runs on both GEFS and EPS....I'd want to see this sustained for a few runs, because it was a notably continuity break

 

[stadiumwave]

16 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Lot more -NAO showing up in early December than previous runs on both GEFS and EPS....I'd want to see this sustained for a few runs, because it was a notably continuity break

 

 

[bluewave]

That early December snapshot looks a lot like last December with a Greenland block and hostile Pacific. But hope we have a better chance at getting lucky due to an undercutting Nino STJ. If not in December then later in the season if we can hold the Greenland block. 
 

 

 

[George001]

4 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

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

Huh I always thought it was 3 months. That’s why I considered 72-73 and 65-66 to be super, not strong. 

[brooklynwx99]

3 minutes ago, George001 said:

Huh I always thought it was 3 months. That’s why I considered 72-73 and 65-66 to be super, not strong. 

one could make the case that 09-10 was strong as well... that winter topped out at +1.6C in NDJ

[George001]

Just now, brooklynwx99 said:

one could make the case that 09-10 was strong as well... that winter topped out at +1.6C in NDJ

Agree, I consider 09-10 to be strong. What’s interesting is if you are using MEI, last winter would be considered a strong Nina and 2010-2011 would be considered super. 

[psuhoffman]

@bluewave wrt getting a colder/snowier winter in the east, there was a lot of speculation that the current pac base state worked to mute the weaker 2019 nino.  But now under the same pac conditions some are speculating this nino will be too strong.  I’ve heard the excuse for 7 years “we’ve been stuck in a Nina pattern” for why it’s been mostly a snowless torch. But we did have one weak nino and now a strong and now some of chatter is why it still won’t help. So just to play devils advocate…assuming this pacific base state is somewhat permanent (at least for the foreseeable future) what exactly would you want to see to predict a cold snowy winter?  

[Stormchaserchuck1]

5 hours ago, GaWx said:

Maybe the El Nino is why models are fluctuating so much? I noticed a much greater than average change in the MR/LR models for the first time when the El Nino started up in the Spring, through the Summer, and now with a major model shift in the last few days (now -NAO and +EPO), this is when El Nino is spiking.. it seems like it would be an independent thing, the model flux, but maybe it's related to the El Nino?

[Stormchaserchuck1]

40 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

@bluewave wrt getting a colder/snowier winter in the east, there was a lot of speculation that the current pac base state worked to mute the weaker 2019 nino.  But now under the same pac conditions some are speculating this nino will be too strong.  I’ve heard the excuse for 7 years “we’ve been stuck in a Nina pattern” for why it’s been mostly a snowless torch. But we did have one weak nino and now a strong and now some of chatter is why it still won’t help. So just to play devils advocate…assuming this pacific base state is somewhat permanent (at least for the foreseeable future) what exactly would you want to see to predict a cold snowy winter?  

I don't think the -PDO is really a good reason either: Air dominates water. 

[Daniel Boone]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

That early December snapshot looks a lot like last December with a Greenland block and hostile Pacific. But hope we have a better chance at getting lucky due to an undercutting Nino STJ. If not in December then later in the season if we can hold the Greenland block. 
 

 

 

Yeah, the STJ may help mitigate the possibility of the-NAO/SER hookup. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

6 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Snowman must have missed this Webber tweet.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, Daniel Boone said:

Yeah, the STJ may help mitigate the possibility of the-NAO/SER hookup. 

Not to mention that west coast trough won't be to Baja.

[griteater]

If Nino 3.4 for November comes in at 2.01 (my estimate from yesterday), that would make SON +1.76 (1.60, 1.66, 2.01 = Avg of 1.76).  And in order for OND to be +2.0, Dec would have to be 2.17 (1.66, 2.01, 2.17 = Avg of 1.95, rounded to +2.0)

My guess is that Nino 3.4 will level off next week in the 2.1 range, then drop down to 1.9 or so in early Dec post WWB, then in late Dec climb back up to 2.1-2.3.  Rough estimate of course, but my guess is that we see another good westerly wind burst in mid-late December (maybe not as strong as this month's though)

[michsnowfreak]

38 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Snowman must have missed this Webber tweet.

A very interesting tweet considering this thread is page after page from mostly the same group of mets and their clear biases. I don't even know who most of them are but by this thread alone as soon as I see the name I can guess where it's going. Also as an aside...speaking of "colder snowier" winters in the east, I imagine that the line is drawn somewhere near Boston where temps, troughs and ridges arent the end all. Obviously winter lovers want snow AND cold. But even in warm winters places north of 40N can get plenty of snow. Saw nearly 40" in Detroit last winter in a MUCH warmer than normal winter. I feel like a lot of bad luck hit the east coast in addition to warmth and that's fresh in people minds. Part of the fun is that each winter is full of unknowns and this one has even more than usual. 

[Daniel Boone]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Not to mention that west coast trough won't be to Baja.

Yeah, really. Lol

[40/70 Benchmark]

29 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

A very interesting tweet considering this thread is page after page from mostly the same group of mets and their clear biases. I don't even know who most of them are but by this thread alone as soon as I see the name I can guess where it's going. Also as an aside...speaking of "colder snowier" winters in the east, I imagine that the line is drawn somewhere near Boston where temps, troughs and ridges arent the end all. Obviously winter lovers want snow AND cold. But even in warm winters places north of 40N can get plenty of snow. Saw nearly 40" in Detroit last winter in a MUCH warmer than normal winter. I feel like a lot of bad luck hit the east coast in addition to warmth and that's fresh in people minds. Part of the fun is that each winter is full of unknowns and this one has even more than usual. 

I ended up with 40.5"....I was just far enough north to not get totally skunked.

[GaWx]

NOAA OHC time series update (5N to 5S)(1991-2020 base):

[bluewave]

10 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

@bluewave wrt getting a colder/snowier winter in the east, there was a lot of speculation that the current pac base state worked to mute the weaker 2019 nino.  But now under the same pac conditions some are speculating this nino will be too strong.  I’ve heard the excuse for 7 years “we’ve been stuck in a Nina pattern” for why it’s been mostly a snowless torch. But we did have one weak nino and now a strong and now some of chatter is why it still won’t help. So just to play devils advocate…assuming this pacific base state is somewhat permanent (at least for the foreseeable future) what exactly would you want to see to predict a cold snowy winter?  

That is a very good question. I am more in the warmer winters  have  become more frequent camp  since the super El Niño. But we don’t have enough data yet to say it has become permanent.  It’s just that the warming WPAC and Western Atlantic have loaded the dice for more warmer outcomes. I still think we’ll eventually get another cold winter in the Northeast. Just that it won’t quite be to the magnitude of what we saw during recent cold winters like 14-15 and 02-03. To get a colder pattern I think we would need to get more of a 500 mb type +PDO pattern like we got in January 22 over several months. I am still trying to figure out how we got that pattern with such a strong -PDO. But my guess is that there is a section of the WPAC near 15N that can override the warmer signal that usually dominates when the entire WPAC is so warm. That is what some of the papers said after the 13-14 and 14-15 winters. I would also like to know why that 13-14 and 14-15 record Western ridge pattern has shifted to the warm season instead of winter leading to record heat and drought out West. So in short, I don’t really know how we could confidently forecast a cold Northeast winter ahead of time absent a strong +PDO and Modoki signature like we got in 14-15. Our next cold winter may just turn out to be a pleasant surprise when forecasts  goes warm again. Though it’s possible someone will find an early season signal and go cold and get it correct.

[SnoSki14]

11 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

I don't think the -PDO is really a good reason either: Air dominates water. 

That's the biggest factor. Winters in the east have sucked because of a powerful Pacific jet and western trough 

Doesn't matter if the AO/NAO are negative if not severely negative if the Pacific is garbage. You just get colder rainstorms. 

[stadiumwave]