El Nino 2023-2024

[40/70 Benchmark]

Was their a volcanic eruption in the early 70s?

[Stormchaserchuck1]

If you correlate to .2101 sigma potential, central-subsurface correlates more to 500mb in the N. Pacific Ocean.  

[brooklynwx99]

5 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

First of all, we can agree to disagree on that, as I view it as more central based/basin-wide....I view modoki as heavily biased west of 150*W. Secondly, as I have said, you are too preoccupied with SSTs and not focusing enough on the convection, which is why the "east-based" analog of 1925-1926 ended up in the manner that it did.

we'll have to see this season, but as long as the WPAC warm pool is present, it should make Ninas worse and Ninos better due to the forcing being displaced west

seems like the former is holding true

[Ed, snow and hurricane fan]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Was their a volcanic eruption in the early 70s?

OT on that, but JB thinks undersea eruptions are the main factor in the abnormally warm SSTs in the Atlantic and Pacific.  Albedo is very low at high sun angle, and the oceans are huge, I'm not smart enough to do the math, but that would require a boatload of undersea volcanoes and vents.

[GaWx]

47 minutes ago, Ed, snow and hurricane fan said:

OT on that, but JB thinks undersea eruptions are the main factor in the abnormally warm SSTs in the Atlantic and Pacific.  Albedo is very low at high sun angle, and the oceans are huge, I'm not smart enough to do the math, but that would require a boatload of undersea volcanoes and vents.

 

This is from a reply to me by @bdgwx about this when I asked in April for feedback regarding JB's article regarding his feeling that warmer SSTs and underwater seismic activity could be connected:

"2) He doesn't explain where he got the seismic data so I cannot replicate his work. But assuming the data is correct and there are no caveats to it's use (experience tells us that is a big IF coming from JB) that still does not mean seismic activity is THE cause of the warming. Correlation does not guarantee causation. Furthermore, we know the planetary energy imbalance is about +0.8 W/m2. It is generally accepted that geothermal activity releases about 0.1 W/m2 on average. If JB is going to make the extraordinary claim that geothermal activity increased by a factor of 9 (0.9 - 0.1 = 0.8 W/m2) then he needs to present extraordinary evidence. Finally, he will need to explain how warming from bottom up can cause the stratosphere to cool."

 

[snowman19]

we'll have to see this season, but as long as the WPAC warm pool is present, it should make Ninas worse and Ninos better due to the forcing being displaced west
seems like the former is holding true

We’ll have to come back to this at the end of March and see if the theory worked out. I don’t really have an opinion either way. I’m curious though. However, I do remember the low arctic sea ice theory many were pushing several years ago (low arctic sea ice will lead to -NAM/-AO and -NAO). That failed horribly, I can’t even remember how many winter forecasts were assuming strong arctic and Atlantic blocking because of the record low arctic sea ice and it turned into a monumental, epic fail

[so_whats_happening]

5 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

we'll have to see this season, but as long as the WPAC warm pool is present, it should make Ninas worse and Ninos better due to the forcing being displaced west

seems like the former is holding true

Ninos would be disrupted. I guess people dont like MEI? If we use this as a clue we have had less impactful ninos from 83 onward (at least super nino peaks have been lower over time) even with SST temps increasing considering 2015-16 had some of the highest 3.4 numbers. We still were impacted by the classic super nino state overall so it will take time for it to really show. As for ninas im not sure it makes them stronger. The only thing i could think of would be that ninas may become more frequent over time with a WPAC warm pool constantly being around. It's a shame it only goes to 1979 but gotta use what we have i guess.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, so_whats_happening said:

Ninos would be disrupted. I guess people dont like MEI? If we use this as a clue we have had less impactful ninos from 83 onward (at least super nino peaks have been lower over time) even with SST temps increasing considering 2015-16 had some of the highest 3.4 numbers. We still were impacted by the classic super nino state overall so it will take time for it to really show. As for ninas im not sure it makes them stronger. The only thing i could think of would be that ninas may become more frequent over time with a WPAC warm pool constantly being around. It's a shame it only goes to 1979 but gotta use what we have i guess.

I use the MEI....factors in to my intensity classification. 

[raindancewx]

I've been talking about 1993-94 as an anti-log because it specifically fixes some of the issues with 1972-73. It's coldest where the models have the Atlantic warmest, and warmest where the NE Pacific is forecast coldest. So subtracting it out from the analogs fixes some of the issues -

The N Atlantic (10N, 30W) and N Pacific around 140W are fixed specifically with 1993-94 included.

I was doing more testing today. Actual US weather matches pretty well to a 1972, 1991, 1997, 2009, 2019 blend - if you recognize that the 1972 and 2023 El Ninos started at different points in Spring. So Feb-Mar works better with anti-1972. But you can more or less replicate the spatial placement of the heat / cold each month with that blend. January is a poor match though. You do generally also have to warm up temps by 1F or so since the analogs are centered on 1998. 

The QBO/Solar stuff works fairly well those five. 1972, 1991, 2009, 2019 are all neutral to very negative QBO winters, with 1997 barely positive. PDO is basically neutral. Solar is very high in 1991 and fairly high in 1972 which offset the very low 2009 and 2019. 

The issue with this winter is the temperature magnitudes. I'm relatively confident in some kind of north / south split for US temperature anomalies. The matches I have all look like the opposites of the +PDO / La Nina winters, which makes sense to me. I could see someone in the Northern US finish 5-10F above normal. But I also wouldn't be shocked at +1 to +3F for both cold / warm departures. 

[so_whats_happening]

13 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I asked him that the other day on twitter...if I remember correctly, he likes the absolute sst match within the ENSO region, despite 1993-1994 falling short of official el nino criteria. It is subtracted to "fix" the PDO, as it was positive that season and is negative this year.

 

5 minutes ago, raindancewx said:

I've been talking about 1993-94 as an anti-log because it specifically fixes some of the issues with 1972-73. It's coldest where the models have the Atlantic warmest, and warmest where the NE Pacific is forecast coldest. So subtracting it out from the analogs fixes some of the issues -

The N Atlantic (10N, 30W) and N Pacific around 140W are fixed specifically with 1993-94 included.

I was doing more testing today. Actual US weather matches pretty well to a 1972, 1991, 1997, 2009, 2019 blend - if you recognize that the 1972 and 2023 El Ninos started at different points in Spring. So Feb-Mar works better with anti-1972. But you can more or less replicate the spatial placement of the heat / cold each month with that blend. January is a poor match though. You do generally also have to warm up temps by 1F or so since the analogs are centered on 1998. 

The QBO/Solar stuff works fairly well those five. 1972, 1991, 2009, 2019 are all neutral to very negative QBO winters, with 1997 barely positive. PDO is basically neutral. Solar is very high in 1991 and fairly high in 1972 which offset the very low 2009 and 2019. 

The issue with this winter is the temperature magnitudes. I'm relatively confident in some kind of north / south split for US temperature anomalies. The matches I have all look like the opposites of the +PDO / La Nina winters, which makes sense to me. I could see someone in the Northern US finish 5-10F above normal. But I also wouldn't be shocked at +1 to +3F for both cold / warm departures. 

Thanks for the response.

[snowman19]

Here it comes:

[bdgwx]

IRI July 2023
                 8      9     10     11     12      1      2      3      4
               JAS    ASO    SON    OND    NDJ    DJF    JFM    FMA    MAM
Dynamic       1.44   1.62   1.73   1.81   1.75   1.50   1.31   1.07   0.87
Statistical   0.93   1.02   1.09   1.13   1.04   0.88   0.69   0.49   0.32
Avg of All    1.28   1.43   1.53   1.59   1.52   1.30   1.11   0.88   0.69
(D+S) / 2     1.19   1.32   1.41   1.47   1.40   1.19   1.00   0.78   0.60

 

[George001]

 

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

Here it comes:

Dynamical guidance is up to a peak ONI of 1.81, not backing down at all. Whether it’s high end strong or low end super, either way it’s going to be a big one. 

[snowman19]

7 hours ago, George001 said:

 

Dynamical guidance is up to a peak ONI of 1.81, not backing down at all. Whether it’s high end strong or low end super, either way it’s going to be a big one. 

Yes, dynamical guidance is getting warmer with each run. IMO, this one is headed for a super peak sometime in December. Probably “low-end” super (+2.1C - +2.5C) but super none the less

[Volcanic Winter]

20 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Was their a volcanic eruption in the early 70s?

Only several commonplace VEI 4’s which are not large enough to be climate impacting. You need at least a mid range VEI 5 like El Chichon in the 80’s, which was the largest recent atmospheric sulphate spike next to Pinatubo 91 (little less than half, but Pinatubo was a substantially larger eruption and also had an assist from Cerro Hudson’s VEI 5 the same year), and larger than anything since Novarupta in 1912. 

Hunga Tonga’s impact should be fading this year, in part because it simply didn’t release that much SO2. I read a paper that suggested the initial measurements were underestimated, but even their proposed value was like 1/4th to 1/7th of the release from El Chichon and much much lower still than Pinatubo. A lot of Hunga Tonga’s volatiles were released into the ocean from underwater ignimbrite formation (pyroclastic flows). Only about 1/3rd as I understand it made it into the eruption plume. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Looks like JAMSTEC has it shifting westward a hair more aggressively, but mostly noise....main takeaway is the east trend stopped.

June

May

[40/70 Benchmark]

40 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Yes, dynamical guidance is getting warmer with each run. IMO, this one is headed for a super peak sometime in December. Probably “low-end” super (+2.1C - +2.5C) but super none the less

Pretty trivial adjustments, as with respect to the EMI....from 1.67 in May, to 1.76 in June and now 1.81 in July.

We have gone from 1.7 to 1.8 from May to July....I know that wouldn't alter my seasonal forecast-

Still think 2.0 ONI is the ceiling.

[Typhoon Tip]

[roardog]

I’m still confused about the coming strong MJO wave that keeps showing up in tweets. I still don’t see anything indicating that. Any previous model runs that had a decent MJO are back to nothing again. 

[roardog]

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Since when was ‘72 a moderate Nino?

[Terpeast]

2 minutes ago, roardog said:

Since when was ‘72 a moderate Nino?

It was strong. 1991-92 is low end strong, 2009-10 is high end moderate. A bit misleading, though

[roardog]

1 minute ago, Terpeast said:

It was strong. 1991-92 is low end strong, 2009-10 is high end moderate. 

I see it now. The moderate Nino starts with ‘09. I guess I was confused there for a minute. lol

[snowman19]

Looks like JAMSTEC has it shifting westward a hair more aggressively, but mostly noise....main takeaway is the east trend stopped.

June

May

The choices are either staying east-based or basin-wide. The Modoki fantasies by some are pure wishcasts

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

The choices are either staying east-based or basin-wide. The Modoki fantasies by some are pure wishcasts

I agree, but I am pretty confident that this goes basin-wide....which really just means that the pattern would be a little less prohibitive to blocking than it would be with an east based event. However, there are certainly basin-wide events that have gone in that direction (very little blocking).

[40/70 Benchmark]

Interesting how far west the forcing was in 1995, and it still managed to be a brutal winter with very little blocking....I have a theory why and may be relevant this year.

[Typhoon Tip]

Very coarsely looking at that spread I provided above for inference, a probability curve emerges:  Better winter performance for temperatures ( to which "possibly" snow can be inferred) begins at the weaker end of warm ENSO, and gains increasingly shittier prospects the stronger they were. 

Now... by 'coarse,' that doesn't break out into quadrature like Modoki this, and easterly limb distributions that, or polar field index balancing ... and RONI (which may prove an increasingly useful and adaptive consideration ..) etc... 

Again ...just coarsely, capping this year to a moderate index, then possibly weakening it after a peak between T-giggedy and Xmas ... wouldn't 86 this year for entertainment if using that coarse method.  

The problem is, this RONI and "relative index factoring" is very real - so that does present challenges to any assumption based upon climate passed when neither was a part of the ENSO rubric

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, Terpeast said:

It was strong. 1991-92 is low end strong, 2009-10 is high end moderate. A bit misleading, though

  This climate.gov list is strictly based on DJF ONI as opposed to peak ONI. That's why 1965-6, which peaked way up at 2.0 in SON and OND, is classified as only moderate in it. That's likely why 2009-10, which peaked at 1.6 in NDJ (D was 1.74 and J was 1.51) counted as only moderate. 2002-3, which peaked well into moderate (1.3) in OND (D was 1.31), and 1987-8 are counted as only weak here for a similar reason.

 Also, this apparently was done before 2018-9 since it isn't on it though the link has 7/2021 in it.

The list we're discussing:

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/ENSO_winters_ElNino_temp_1240.jpg
 

ONI:
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

[GaWx]

On 7/17/2023 at 6:22 PM, brooklynwx99 said:

only thing that really has this MJO pulse in earnest is the CFS. if it's correct, though, this would signal the transition to a more basin-wide Nino rather than the east-based configuration we have right now as 4 and 3.4 warm and 1+2 cools off

The inferior CFS today suddenly has the MJO only getting to the circle (i.e., amplitude of 1.0) on top as opposed to above it, including in your post from Monday. Just yesterday and every day for the last 10+ days it also had it well into phases 5 and 6. Earlier this month, it had an amplitude as high as the low 2 range!

 Today's CFS MJO:

 

To compare, here's 7/11/23 CFS:

 

[brooklynwx99]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

The inferior CFS today suddenly has the MJO only getting to the circle (i.e., amplitude of 1.0) on top as opposed to above it, including in your post from Monday. Just yesterday and every day for the last 10+ days it also had it well into phases 5 and 6. Earlier this month, it had an amplitude as high as the low 2 range!

 Today's CFS MJO:

 

To compare, here's 7/11/23 CFS:

 

this likely leads to a lower peak in strength in the coming days if I had to take a guess

[40/70 Benchmark]

I don't think el nino is telling us very much this season.

Winter 2023-2024 Unlikely to be Decided by ENSO | Eastern Mass Weather