Winter El Nino Tracking Thread 2023-2024

[CAPE]

4 minutes ago, Weather Will said:

I saw May above realize now it was May 31, oh well....

Yeah it typically comes out a day earlier.

Last month's edition would not have generated any new discourse here though. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

NAO remains variable.. no signs of sustained, long duration -NAO, and it fluctuates on future models a lot. N. Pacific pattern >>>. 

[psuhoffman]

On 6/2/2023 at 12:34 PM, Terpeast said:

I’m working on a side project to try and prove this out by using adjustments on daily temp and precip data at KIAD including SWE, to today’s climate to tease out whether a 15” storm in the 60s, 70s, or 80s would actually produce more today. I will also tease out, statistically, on how 2-4” events from the past would be affected in today’s climate. 

Hopefully I’ll come up with the results this summer. 

I am very interested in the results.  But I know how difficult it is to get at that in a statistically significant way so I appreciate the work.  

[CAPE]

21 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

NAO remains variable.. no signs of sustained, long duration -NAO, and it fluctuates on future models a lot. N. Pacific pattern >>>. 

Who cares about a sustained -NAO in June and July.

[WxWatcher007]

53 minutes ago, CAPE said:

Who cares about a sustained -NAO in June and July.

<tropical weenie raises hand>

[North Balti Zen]

 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

On 6/5/2023 at 4:49 PM, CAPE said:

Who cares about a sustained -NAO in June and July.

It would be nice to see the decadal NAO go negative. It's ripe conditions for that I think. -NAO's keep getting sheared out. And when the NAO is negative the Pacific pattern always changes a certain way to support us being warmer, something like "not being realized within X box". (I wonder if a super, super -NAO is possible to happen). 

[Prestige Worldwide]

 

[Terpeast]

On 6/5/2023 at 11:59 AM, psuhoffman said:

I am very interested in the results.  But I know how difficult it is to get at that in a statistically significant way so I appreciate the work.  

I'm not finished yet, but my preliminary results using one statistical method involving detrended temperature data showed a 16% reduction in snowfall overall.

Out of all snow "events" (anything over 0.5" I count as an event and omit the rest):

- 32% of them would have decreased snowfall in today's climate if they happened now than some X date in the past (e.g. an 8" snowfall in 1970 would be only 4" today)
- 15% of them would be "total losses" (complete rainstorms)
- 34% of them would see no change (similar accumulations)
- 19% of them would actually see increased snowfall with bigger accumulations

Of those 19%, I can highlight a few examples of very cold storms where a few degrees increase wouldn't flip it to rain, but would actually juice up the storm:

1) Feb 1979 (PD1) would have dropped 22" if it happened today rather than 16" at IAD
2) Feb 1983 would have dropped 30" today instead of just 23" (!!)
3) Jan 1996 would also have dumped 30" instead of 24"

Then as we get into more recent storms like 2010 and 2016, the effect would be minimal because the temperature difference would be minimal. Interestingly, in the first 2010 storm, day 1 yielded 4" less, but day 2 yielded 2" more, so the result was 30". The actual was 32.4", so the loss was minimal, but more on the front end of that storm when the BL temps were still warm-ish and lots of snowfall was lost to melting.

The 2016 storm had almost no change (obviously).

Now, on the flip side... how many major storms did we lose?

1) We lost a footer in Feb 1987... assuming my method is correct (more or less), that storm would be the perfect track rainstorm. Total shutout.

2) There were four 8" storms throughout the 1960s... and we lost them all! Four 8-inchers in the 60s got zeroed out. (though there were another 3-4 storms in the 60s that made up for those losses by adding more snowfall... one 10" storm would produce 15" today, for example).

 

So this was a qualitative look at how snowstorms from the past would perform in today's climate. It was exciting to share, even though I'm not finished with it yet. I haven't looked at ENSO, PDO, and other methods that may possibly affect snowfall like adjusting SWE, and so on. Still hoping to get full results out in its own thread here.

 

[Jebman]

On 6/5/2023 at 3:49 PM, CAPE said:

Who cares about a sustained -NAO in June and July.

<This tropical weenie raises hand>

[Jebman]

If this turns out to be a very strong Nino, with the already elevated sea surface temps, there is gonna be a ton of rain and severe weather this year. That subtrop jet is going to get supercharged and will be in BEAST MODE like never before. Someone is going to get annihilated, GeorgeBM-style.

And come winter, you better look out, Mid Atlantic. You'll be the new Palisades Tahoe.

[Jebman]

Thats THREE massive thunderstorms in a row down here just in the past week. Lawn is in beast mode, now. It's going to get very hot for the next week, but we have already had 21 inches of rain this year. Thirty inches Is normal for the entire year in Buda. We are going to get a ton of rain this year and next.

Virginia will, too, and in December the sky will turn to heavy snow in the Mid Atlantic and it will be massive storm after massive storm after massive storm after massive storm. Might need to change the name of my old home town from Dale City, to Palisades City. That subtropical jet stream will become a raging beast and the sensible weather will go full-on George BM. See his forecasts. They are fascinating reading, and may turn out to be conservative, particularly if the Nino goes very strong or possibly beyond, into uncharted territory. Dont forget the sea surface temperatures. They are already excessive, even BEFORE the Nino.

[brooklynwx99]

18 hours ago, Terpeast said:

I'm not finished yet, but my preliminary results using one statistical method involving detrended temperature data showed a 16% reduction in snowfall overall.

Out of all snow "events" (anything over 0.5" I count as an event and omit the rest):

- 32% of them would have decreased snowfall in today's climate if they happened now than some X date in the past (e.g. an 8" snowfall in 1970 would be only 4" today)
- 15% of them would be "total losses" (complete rainstorms)
- 34% of them would see no change (similar accumulations)
- 19% of them would actually see increased snowfall with bigger accumulations

Of those 19%, I can highlight a few examples of very cold storms where a few degrees increase wouldn't flip it to rain, but would actually juice up the storm:

1) Feb 1979 (PD1) would have dropped 22" if it happened today rather than 16" at IAD
2) Feb 1983 would have dropped 30" today instead of just 23" (!!)
3) Jan 1996 would also have dumped 30" instead of 24"

Then as we get into more recent storms like 2010 and 2016, the effect would be minimal because the temperature difference would be minimal. Interestingly, in the first 2010 storm, day 1 yielded 4" less, but day 2 yielded 2" more, so the result was 30". The actual was 32.4", so the loss was minimal, but more on the front end of that storm when the BL temps were still warm-ish and lots of snowfall was lost to melting.

The 2016 storm had almost no change (obviously).

Now, on the flip side... how many major storms did we lose?

1) We lost a footer in Feb 1987... assuming my method is correct (more or less), that storm would be the perfect track rainstorm. Total shutout.

2) There were four 8" storms throughout the 1960s... and we lost them all! Four 8-inchers in the 60s got zeroed out. (though there were another 3-4 storms in the 60s that made up for those losses by adding more snowfall... one 10" storm would produce 15" today, for example).

 

So this was a qualitative look at how snowstorms from the past would perform in today's climate. It was exciting to share, even though I'm not finished with it yet. I haven't looked at ENSO, PDO, and other methods that may possibly affect snowfall like adjusting SWE, and so on. Still hoping to get full results out in its own thread here.

 

yeah this makes sense. just increases variance overall. going to have to be patient, but when we get hammered it probably breaks records 

[stormy]

19 hours ago, Terpeast said:

I'm not finished yet, but my preliminary results using one statistical method involving detrended temperature data showed a 16% reduction in snowfall overall.

Out of all snow "events" (anything over 0.5" I count as an event and omit the rest):

- 32% of them would have decreased snowfall in today's climate if they happened now than some X date in the past (e.g. an 8" snowfall in 1970 would be only 4" today)
- 15% of them would be "total losses" (complete rainstorms)
- 34% of them would see no change (similar accumulations)
- 19% of them would actually see increased snowfall with bigger accumulations

Of those 19%, I can highlight a few examples of very cold storms where a few degrees increase wouldn't flip it to rain, but would actually juice up the storm:

1) Feb 1979 (PD1) would have dropped 22" if it happened today rather than 16" at IAD
2) Feb 1983 would have dropped 30" today instead of just 23" (!!)
3) Jan 1996 would also have dumped 30" instead of 24"

Then as we get into more recent storms like 2010 and 2016, the effect would be minimal because the temperature difference would be minimal. Interestingly, in the first 2010 storm, day 1 yielded 4" less, but day 2 yielded 2" more, so the result was 30". The actual was 32.4", so the loss was minimal, but more on the front end of that storm when the BL temps were still warm-ish and lots of snowfall was lost to melting.

The 2016 storm had almost no change (obviously).

Now, on the flip side... how many major storms did we lose?

1) We lost a footer in Feb 1987... assuming my method is correct (more or less), that storm would be the perfect track rainstorm. Total shutout.

2) There were four 8" storms throughout the 1960s... and we lost them all! Four 8-inchers in the 60s got zeroed out. (though there were another 3-4 storms in the 60s that made up for those losses by adding more snowfall... one 10" storm would produce 15" today, for example).

 

So this was a qualitative look at how snowstorms from the past would perform in today's climate. It was exciting to share, even though I'm not finished with it yet. I haven't looked at ENSO, PDO, and other methods that may possibly affect snowfall like adjusting SWE, and so on. Still hoping to get full results out in its own thread here.

 

Thank you very much for all the work you put into this. I see a scatter effect since the 60's that cannot be definitive toward any end result.

[AtlanticWx]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:36 PM, Terpeast said:

I'm not finished yet, but my preliminary results using one statistical method involving detrended temperature data showed a 16% reduction in snowfall overall.

Out of all snow "events" (anything over 0.5" I count as an event and omit the rest):

- 32% of them would have decreased snowfall in today's climate if they happened now than some X date in the past (e.g. an 8" snowfall in 1970 would be only 4" today)
- 15% of them would be "total losses" (complete rainstorms)
- 34% of them would see no change (similar accumulations)
- 19% of them would actually see increased snowfall with bigger accumulations

Of those 19%, I can highlight a few examples of very cold storms where a few degrees increase wouldn't flip it to rain, but would actually juice up the storm:

1) Feb 1979 (PD1) would have dropped 22" if it happened today rather than 16" at IAD
2) Feb 1983 would have dropped 30" today instead of just 23" (!!)
3) Jan 1996 would also have dumped 30" instead of 24"

Then as we get into more recent storms like 2010 and 2016, the effect would be minimal because the temperature difference would be minimal. Interestingly, in the first 2010 storm, day 1 yielded 4" less, but day 2 yielded 2" more, so the result was 30". The actual was 32.4", so the loss was minimal, but more on the front end of that storm when the BL temps were still warm-ish and lots of snowfall was lost to melting.

The 2016 storm had almost no change (obviously).

Now, on the flip side... how many major storms did we lose?

1) We lost a footer in Feb 1987... assuming my method is correct (more or less), that storm would be the perfect track rainstorm. Total shutout.

2) There were four 8" storms throughout the 1960s... and we lost them all! Four 8-inchers in the 60s got zeroed out. (though there were another 3-4 storms in the 60s that made up for those losses by adding more snowfall... one 10" storm would produce 15" today, for example).

 

So this was a qualitative look at how snowstorms from the past would perform in today's climate. It was exciting to share, even though I'm not finished with it yet. I haven't looked at ENSO, PDO, and other methods that may possibly affect snowfall like adjusting SWE, and so on. Still hoping to get full results out in its own thread here.

 

Out of curiosity, what statistical methods did you use/if you created a script to calculate these statistics, would you be able to post it?

[Terpeast]

4 hours ago, AtlanticWx said:

Out of curiosity, what statistical methods did you use/if you created a script to calculate these statistics, would you be able to post it?

I’ll explain that in more detail when I finish the project, but basically detrended the temp time series, then used empirical relationships between actual temps and snowfall to calculate new snowfall totals based on detrended temp data.

I’ll also list my assumptions, rationale for using these methods, and any weaknesses each method has, for full transparency’s sake. I’ll be the first to admit that it probably won’t pass the muster of academic peer review, but it’ll hopefully satisfy my (and maybe the forum’s) personal curiousity on what we can expect from future winters. 

[yoda]

Yes please to the CanSIPS

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, brooklynwx99 said:

it's insane lmao

 

3 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, yoda said:

Yes please to the CanSIPS

Its been frighteningly consistent.

[40/70 Benchmark]

This is largely why it looks like that IMO...you can see that el nino has already shifted a good bit west by November.

[CAPE]

The latest edition of the CanSIPS was discussed pretty extensively a couple weeks ago itt when it came out. The advertised Nino evolution from early Fall through winter looks quite interesting for our region. Couple more weeks until the next edition.

[Terpeast]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This is largely why it looks like that IMO...you can see that el nino has already shifted a good bit west by November.

really like the enso orientation here, but global ssts are frighteningly warm all over

[mattie g]

19 hours ago, Terpeast said:

really like the enso orientation here, but global ssts are frighteningly warm all over

Lots and LOTS of underwater volcanoes!

[psuhoffman]

On 6/15/2023 at 5:24 PM, Terpeast said:

really like the enso orientation here, but global ssts are frighteningly warm all over

Not sure how much impact a Nino has when there is very little gradient.  On the other hand Nina’s are being enhanced. Not good. 

[Maestrobjwa]

12 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Not sure how much impact a Nino has when there is very little gradient.  On the other hand Nina’s are being enhanced. Not good. 

Why are they being enhanced, though? (My apologies if this has been discussed at length already)

[Stormchaserchuck1]

We had a global warming spike until May.  Now the S. Hemisphere is warming pretty good, so I'm not sure it's over. 

I did do a research that years after the NAO didn't correlate (negative-warm here, positive-cold here), the following year the pattern was uniform to indexes 2x or 2SD better, so if we have a +PNA or GOA low (more likely in El Nino) it should put a 3rd wave trough over the EC in the Winter. 

[Jebman]

On 6/15/2023 at 4:24 PM, Terpeast said:

really like the enso orientation here, but global ssts are frighteningly warm all over

THose warm SST's are going to super energize that subtrop jet as the Nino gets stronger! The weather is going to go totally postal all over! Way too much rain in the South, much more severe weather, ridiculously deep snowfalls in places like Washington DC in 2023-24 Winter and lots more! Great times to be a weather enthusiast!

[Jebman]

On 6/15/2023 at 2:33 PM, 40/70 Benchmark said:

This is largely why it looks like that IMO...you can see that el nino has already shifted a good bit west by November.

Everyone is going to get clobbered by torrential snows this upcoming winter, but your region is going to get Palisaded really badly!

[frd]

4 hours ago, Jebman said:

Everyone is going to get clobbered by torrential snows this upcoming winter, but your region is going to get Palisaded really badly!

This Modiki El Nino, if it does develop,  may not act the same as others have done in the past.  Using JB's analogs from the 50's and 60's is not logical anymore. Things are much different from 09-10 as well.   

[WxUSAF]

HM says his preferred analogs right now are 1899 and 1925. Have no idea what that means for us.