2024-2025 La Nina

[Typhoon Tip]

On 6/8/2024 at 6:57 PM, George001 said:

Interesting, so if you adjust for the Euros +0.7 ONI warm bias for non nino winters, that would bump the ONI from roughly -0.3 to -1, so the difference between cold neutral and a moderate Niña. Especially for DTs forecasting area (lower Mid Atlantic), I would assume the difference between a cold neutral and moderate Niña would be somewhat significant

I didn't get the sense that he was calling off anything?   It reads like he is conveying the model trends. 

yeah, he does say that he thinks the Euro will turn out correct, but he also offers uncertainty too, "...possible that the consensus could also be correct"  - grammatically redundant but that's no crime.  lol 

[40/70 Benchmark]

On 6/6/2024 at 10:05 PM, raindancewx said:

My forecasts actually seem to be getting more traction each year. I don't have a website, a Facebook, or anything like that. It's just one link posted here and on Twitter, but I get several thousand reads, or at least views now.

I try not to post on here more than 1-3 times per day, as I consider it a waste of time in most respects. So I think the low interactions when I post my forecasts are more about me not posting too much than anything else.

I could easily see the US (lower 48 anyway) average +3 to +10 for the winter, with a cold spot from Billings to San Francisco, but I really have no idea yet. It's too early. The global upper level pattern that matches with SSTs for JJA or JAS will be pretty telling. That combo almost always rolls forward correctly.

Well, I follow you on Twitter and you aren't like that there...which is probably why you generate the interest since your seasonal work is great. I do think people would get turned off if you went on there and talked to folks like they were idiots and made baseless accusations of people plagiarizing your stuff. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

10 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

2016-17 wasn't enso neutral. It was a weak la nina. We had the 5 trimonthlys of -0.5 on the NOAA ONI, and got down to -0.7 on both the Eric Webb Ensemble and NOAA ONI. We even got down to -1.09 on the RONI. 

2014-15 has a better argument for enso neutral than 2016-17. That one had the same strength as 2016-17 on the ONI, and only 0.58 on the RONI.

So, the only ones that can be considered enso neutral are 2001-02, 2003-04, 2012-13, 2013-14, and maybe 2019-20 (an ENSO neutral on the RONI, but you could argue a continuation of a weak el nino on the ONI that began in 2018).

2014-2015 was definitely a weak el Nino and not neutral.

[snowman19]

Total collapse of the +IOD. Neutral now. You can also see the very beginnings of a -IOD signature starting to develop. Big fail for the models that were showing a stout +IOD this summer back in March and April. This only lends more support to a healthy La Niña event forming

[bluewave]

On 6/9/2024 at 2:49 PM, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

March 2023 too, we had a -NAO and -EPO for some time. It amounted to nothing.  I think later in the -PNA decadal phase a SE ridge becomes more constant vs early in the cycle. That's something I think we could batteling again this Winter, even if the NAO goes negative. 

The -PNA -AO patterns from 1950 to 1970 didn’t have the Southeast ridge pattern that we have seen frequently during the 2020s so far. 
 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, snowman19 said:

Total collapse of the +IOD. Neutral now. You can also see the very beginnings of a -IOD signature starting to develop. Big fail for the models that were showing a stout +IOD this summer back in March and April. This only lends more support to a healthy La Niña event forming
 

TBH, I am hoping the La Nina gets going because it will further bolster what looks to be an active tropical system. And a hyper active ACE is also probably our best shot at avoiding another bottom dweller of a winter, rather than ENSO neutral.

[40/70 Benchmark]

23 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The -PNA -AO patterns from 1950 to 1970 didn’t have the Southeast ridge pattern that we have seen frequently during the 2020s so far. 
 

 

 

While you are certainly correct about this, part of the reason why March 2023 failed was just brutal luck, as well. About 40 miles away from Boston had a 3' snowfall in March 2023 and it was only some idiosyncracies with the respect to the development of the secondary that prevented the immediate Boston area from pulling off a very memorable snowfall, as well. Again, there is validaty to your assertion, but as always the devil is in the details.

[jm1220]

16 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

TBH, I am hoping the La Nina gets going because it will further bolster what looks to be an active tropical system. And a hyper active ACE is also probably our best shot at avoiding another bottom dweller of a winter, rather than ENSO neutral.

Yup, and hopefully enough of this 50-50 trough can remain to recurve them. Of course an active Gulf/Caribbean season screws people regardless. FL is one huge hit into PBI-Miami or Tampa (way overdue) from an insurance catastrophe. 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

5 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

While you are certainly correct about this, part of the reason why March 2023 failed was just brutal luck, as well. About 40 miles away from Boston had a 3' snowfall in March 2023 and it was only some idiosyncracies with the respect to the development of the secondary that prevented the immediate Boston area from pulling off a very memorable snowfall, as well. Again, there is validaty to your assertion, but as always the devil is in the details.

I think it was more of a case where the pattern formed way too late in the season for anything to really happen. Had that pattern formed in late December 2022 instead, we would have gotten a very cold February and March 2023, as seen by the blocking pattern we got in June 2023. That late April rainstorm would have been a big blizzard in early February, followed by a dry cold pattern most of February and the first half of March, and exited that with another snowstorm near the spring equinox. (Remember the record cold highs around the summer solstice last year. Now imagine how cold that would have been if that was late March instead.)

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

I think it was more of a case where the pattern formed way too late in the season for anything to really happen. Had that pattern formed in late December 2022 instead, we would have gotten a very cold February and March 2023, as seen by the blocking pattern we got in June 2023. That late April rainstorm would have been a big blizzard in early February, followed by a dry cold pattern most of February and the first half of March, and exited that with another snowstorm near the spring equinox. (Remember the record cold highs around the summer solstice last year. Now imagine how cold that would have been if that was late March instead.)

I do not at all agree. Early March is plenty of time to cash in on snow chances...I mean, it would have been nice to have the pattern set in earlier because that would have afforded a larger window, sure.

[bluewave]

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

While you are certainly correct about this, part of the reason why March 2023 failed was just brutal luck, as well. About 40 miles away from Boston had a 3' snowfall in March 2023

March 2023 didn’t have much to do with luck. The -NAO was linked up with the Southeast ridge leading up to the storm. So the low tracked too far north and the interior Northeast jackpot instead of closer to the immediate coast. It was the same reason the near record -AO in December didn’t produce. 
 

[40/70 Benchmark]

13 minutes ago, bluewave said:

March 2023 didn’t have much to do with luck. The -NAO was linked up with the Southeast ridge leading up to the storm. So the low tracked too far north and the interior Northeast jackpot instead of closer to the immediate coast. It was the same reason the near record -AO in December didn’t produce. 
 

Yes, it did. Sure, the pattern wasn't perfect, but there was a meso low that formed in CT as opposed to a clean transfer. Now, I agree that something like that is more likely to happen due to the pattern at hand, but that precise mesoscale evoution did not have to take place.

I am speaking for SNE....that pattern is probably prohibitive for the mid atl, but it is not for SNE....not in early March, anyway.

[bluewave]

46 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yes, it did. Sure, the pattern wasn't perfect, but there was a meso low that formed in CT as opposed to a clean transfer. Now, I agree that something like that is more likely to happen due to the pattern at hand, but that precise mesoscale evoution did not have to take place.

I am speaking for SNE....that pattern is probably prohibitive for the mid atl, but it is not for SNE....not in early March, anyway.

The seasonal pattern leading up to the storm has a really big influence. The storm tracks were really poor for SNE from December on. So there was just too much of a Southeast ridge influence in March for the coast. The whole storm track was just to far north. It was the worst snowfall performance on record from NYC to Boston with a winter with such a low -AO in December. 

The only above normal snowfall season for NYC during the 2020s so far was 2020-2021. That December -AO pattern which produced the nice snowstorm along the coastal plain occurred during a +PNA. But since the block was so south based, the low tucked in close to ACY that BGM got the 40” jackpot instead of NYC to Boston. 

The late January into February period was the only productive productive -PNA pattern for the 2020s so far. My guess is the main reason that it worked out in places like NYC was that the PNA was positive for the first half of the season. After it flipped in late January the storm track still remained far enough south with Southeast ridge suppression continuing. So the favorable seasonal storm track established during the early part of the winter with the +PNA lingered after the the PNA turned negative. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The seasonal pattern leading up to the storm has a really big influence. The storm tracks were really poor for SNE from December on. So there was just too much of a Southeast ridge influence in March for the coast. The whole storm track was just to far north. It was the worst snowfall performance on record from NYC to Boston with a winter with such a low -AO in December. 

The only above normal snowfall season for NYC during the 2020s so far was 2020-2021. That December -AO pattern which produced the nice snowstorm along the coastal plain occurred during a +PNA. But since the block was so south based, the low tucked in close to ACY that BGM got the 40” jackpot instead of NYC to Boston. 

The late January into February period was the only productive productive -PNA pattern for the 2020s so far. My guess is the main reason that it worked out in places like NYC was that the PNA was positive for the first half of the season. So after it flipped in late January the storm track still remained far enough south. So the favorable seasonal storm track established during the early part of the winter with the +PNA lingered after the the PNA turned negative. 

If there had been a cleaner trasnfer to the coast, then most of SNE would have gotten croacked. ...but there was a provisional appendage low that lingered over interior CT prior to complete trasnfer. I forecast these storms and scrutinize them obsessively and have a very firm grasp of my regional climo. Again, I agree with you that the seasonal pattern was a factor in something like that taking place, but its not entirely due to that. There are some awful seasons when it comes together perfectly and other great seasons when we still just don't get quite a proficient enough of a phase, etc. ...there is certainly some luck involved.

I feel like your thought process needs to be a bit more nuanced in this case.

[Typhoon Tip]

More of a personal philosophy but "luck" to me is really just the uncertainty of not knowing what, and perhaps most importantly, how much all the variables are that have input into a given field of observation.  If you know all that information ... the outcome becomes academic.

So you rolled snake-eyes at Crapse.  You got unlucky... However,  if you knew what all the variables were/are that effect(ed) the system of dice rolling, uncertainty almost ( but only almost...) vanquishes.  Being able to predict the future dice rolled snake-eyes was all but certain.  You no longer call that luck.

It's a not a knock on anyone.  There's ultimately a limit to how much one can ever know.  Hell ... photon double slit experiments won't allow you to observe the photons - only something that is like photons, because the mere act of doing so ( spooky ) acts as if the photons know you are looking and then deviate from ever repeating experimental results.   ha ha. 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

13 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

More of a personal philosophy but "luck" to me is really just the uncertainty of not knowing what, and perhaps most importantly, how much all the variables are that have input into a given field of observation.  If you know all that information ... the outcome becomes academic.

So you rolled snake-eyes at Crapes.  You got unlucky... However,  if you knew what all the variables were/are that effect(ed) the system of dice rolling, uncertainty almost ( but only almost...) vanquishes.

It's a not a knock on anyone.  There's ultimately a limit to how much one can ever be know.  Hell ... photon double slit experiments won't allow you to observe the photons, because the mere act of doing so ( spooky ) acts as if the photons know you are looking and deviate from ever experimentally repeating results.   ha ha.   So some day ... when weather modeling is down to the quantum cubits of the cosmos, it ultimately will not expose the intentions of god - not allowed. 

 

 

I agree with this.....the term "luck" is really just a succinct and convenient concession that we can't possibly know every infinitesimal variable and element at play. In this case, it was not as if the parent mid level system was too far north because it wasn't an issue of latitude. Locales at elevation around here had over 30", which would not have happened if the parent system were too far north. What happened was the lingering appendage low over interior CT allowed the lower levels to flood with just enough warm air to prevent a blizzard. No way of knowing that would have happened very far in advance, regardless of whether or not there was a se ridge.

CT/RI and the mid atlantic you can blame the pattern....sure, but not from around the MA pike and up.

[snowman19]

1 hour ago, jm1220 said:

Yup, and hopefully enough of this 50-50 trough can remain to recurve them. Of course an active Gulf/Caribbean season screws people regardless. FL is one huge hit into PBI-Miami or Tampa (way overdue) from an insurance catastrophe. 

If anything, for what it’s worth the models are showing straight east-west tracks and not recurves. They have been showing this for a few months now and still are. FL may be screwed

[Typhoon Tip]

12 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I agree with this.....the term "luck" is really just a succinct and convenient concession that we can't possible know every infinitesimal variable and element at play. In this case, it was not as if the parent mid level system was too far north because it wasn't an issue of latitude. Locales at elevation around here had over 30", which would not have happened if the parent system were too far north. What happened was the lingering appendage low over interior CT allowed the lower levels to flood with just enough warm air to prevent a blizzard. No way of knowing that would have happened vary far in advance, regardless of whether or not there was a se ridge.

CT/RI and the mid atlantic you can blame the pattern....sure, but not from around the MA pike and up.

Exactly.

I would only press that we not only can't know "every", it's more apropos to say we know far less than every.  That kind of matters, because the size of the uncertainty is proportional to the amount of dumb fuck luck that people take credit for when the dice roll kindly    (tongue-in-cheek humor intended there - )

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

Exactly.

I would only press that we not only can't know every, it's more apropos to say we know far less than every.  That kind of matters, because the size of the uncertainty is proportional to the amount of dumb fuck luck that people take credit for when the dice roll kindly    (tongue-in-cheek humor intended there - )

 

 

Yep, no argument...although I would add that there are also varying degrees there.....seasonal forecasting is an impossible enough endeavor as it is, so you inherently need some level of luck to present a servicable product. But some efforts are definitely better than others.

[snowman19]

TBH, I am hoping the La Nina gets going because it will further bolster what looks to be an active tropical system. And a hyper active ACE is also probably our best shot at avoiding another bottom dweller of a winter, rather than ENSO neutral.

This is the first time I’ve seen this study but it shows some research that says high solar states may cut down on the number of TC’s in the Atlantic. Guess we will find out soon….

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

This is the first time I’ve seen this study but it shows some research that says high solar states may cut down on the number of TC’s in the Atlantic. Guess we will find out soon….

 

 

 

 

 I swear, if someone said "Well at least snow chances can't fall off of the planet since the world is round", you would promptly dig up some peer reviewed piece claiming that the earth is flat-

[Typhoon Tip]

See ... case in point.  

I guarantee you, no one has probably ever factored this into a seasonal forecast -

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-discovery-reveals-ocean-algae-unexpectedly.html

[40/70 Benchmark]

26 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

This is the first time I’ve seen this study but it shows some research that says high solar states may cut down on the number of TC’s in the Atlantic. Guess we will find out soon….

 

 

 

 

Giving a cursory glance and the highest ACE seasons due tend to focus around low solar...interesting to see what happens this year. I know raindance said he isn't sold on  a hyperactive season.

[snowman19]

17 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Giving a cursory glance and the highest ACE seasons due tend to focus around low solar...interesting to see what happens this year. I know raindance said he isn't sold on  a hyperactive season.

I know many years ago HM had mentioned something about high and low solar states and their effect on the tropical season. Cannot remember what he said about it TBH. If there’s any truth to that study I posted (high solar=less Atlantic TC’s), we should see some evidence of it this year given the ridiculous ++AMO

[40/70 Benchmark]

6 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

I know many years ago HM had mentioned something about high and low solar states and their effect on the tropical season. Cannot remember what he said about it TBH. If there’s any truth to that study I posted (high solar=less Atlantic TC’s), we should see some evidence of it this year given the ridiculous ++AMO

Yea, good test.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I will say, I do not think that a very high ACE this season automatically dismisses that relrationship, either....as we well know, none of these correlations are perfect. There still may be something to this, regardless.

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yep, no argument...although I would add that there are also varying degrees there.....seasonal forecasting is an impossible enough endeavor as it is, so you inherently need some level of luck to present a servicable product. But some efforts are definitely better than others.

Let's ride this lol

[40/70 Benchmark]

I wonder why they haven't update the MEI since April...annoying. If they do that this fall I will lose my shit. lol

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Let's ride this lol

Ride this

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

Let's ride this lol

LMAO! I assume you're posting this for the comedy aspect. For those who haven't been following this, the WB versions of the CFS model have been way out in left field compared to both the Tropical Tidbits versions (yes the SAME model!) as well as other long ranged models. One thing the WB CFS maps have literally been showing are polar opposite SST anomalies to TT CFS for the same periods! JB is posting these likely due to a combo of his off the chart weenieness and for increased WB clients/clicks. He's sunk to a new low imho. This map is literally showing the coldest Jan-Mar 2025 in the E 2/3 of the US going back to the late 1800s and by a significant margin. He picks and chooses the coldest individual WB CFS 2m runs to post. And they're not even real!

 There obviously are serious flaws in the WB algos related to its CFS output. JB needs to be called out for this nonsense as often as he posts flawed/fake crapola like this. This is bottom of the barrel.

*Edit: I don’t think JB even realizes that WB CFS output is flawed. I’m confident he doesn’t compare it to TT CFS.