2024-2025 La Nina

[40/70 Benchmark]

Some brief opening thoughts on next season....

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2024/06/la-nina-looms-for-winter-2024-2025.html

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, FPizz said:

Let's ride this lol

 I forgot to mention this. Note that a good number of these extreme cold E US WB CFS maps have been showing near normal in/near N Lower Michigan/E Upper MI while many of the same ones also show the strongest cold anomalies just 200-250 miles to the S near Chicago. That’s obviously from a flaw.

[40/70 Benchmark]

49 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Some brief opening thoughts on next season....

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2024/06/la-nina-looms-for-winter-2024-2025.html

These are just based off of ENSO intensity, BTW...so don't read too deeply into this. Just a bare-bones starter of a conversational piece. But some of these seasons could end up having some value.

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

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.

Obviously, that's what the lol was for.  Would be funny if something like that happened out of nowhere though throwing pie in everyone's faces minus JB who would be right for the first time in 20 years

[snowman19]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

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.

JB decided back in March that this winter is going to be a full on ice age with 20 feet of snow up and down the east coast. Done deal in his mind and he’s going to keep posting it over and over. And if he’s wrong, he won’t care, no shame, he will act like it never happened and just wash, rinse, repeat next year. He gets all the subscription money, likes, follows and retweets he wants from his clueless east coast weenie base and he knows they will never stop. Laughing all the way to the bank. He’s doing the equivalent of giving a crack addict crack and it works like a charm for him year after year

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I highly doubt we're going to have a JFM colder than 2015 any time soon. Didn't JFM 2015 set a record for the coldest JFM in the Eastern US?

[GaWx]

5 hours 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….

 

 

 

 

1. I’ve never heard about this. Interesting.

2. Ronnie unfortunately didn’t post a link to the study from which the tweet’s figure 1 analysis of SSN vs TC count comes. Ronnie says that strength is affected, but figure 1 says nothing about strength.

3. The study cited by the tweet says no connection between annual TC count/SSN. But it does suggest -correlation between 11 yr moving avgs. It shows 1964-2021. From late 80s-2021 as 11 year moving avg of TC count has risen, the 11 year moving avg of SSN has been dropping.

 I’m wondering if this could really be correlation without causation. We know the 11 year moving avg of TC count has been rising the last few decades due to +AMO/rising SSTs. But also NHC seems to have been naming more weak systems. Did the weakening in the prior few sunspot cycles also contribute to those increased TC counts? If so, we should start to see a drop in 11 year moving avg TC count as we go through next few years due to last 2 yrs of very active sunspots causing a new rise in SSN 11 yr avg. If there really is a connection, what is the scientific reasoning?

4. Looking at individual years, highest TC counts vs nearby averages included 2020, 2005, 1995, 1969, 1954, 1950, 1949, 1936, 1933, 1916, and 1887. What was ASO SSN for those high TC count seasons?

2020: 8

2005: 37

1995: 22

1969: 135

1954: 8

1950: 93

1949: 189

1936: 140

1933: 5

1916: 73

1887: 20

AVG: 39

 
Longterm avg SSN is likely ~~75. Thus, the avg of 39 for high TC seasons is pretty low. So, out of these 11 seasons, 6 had well below avg SSNs in ASO. Only 3 of the 11 has well above avg SSNs. Thus, this data suggests there may be a modest correlation between high TC count years and low SSN years though nothing earth shattering, especially considering a fairly small sample size.

[bluewave]

4 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

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

So we agree then since my comment about the pattern was for the mid-Atlantic to CT/RI and not the MA pike and up. 

[GaWx]

More on potential -correlation between 11 yr moving avgs of SSN and Atlantic TC count:

 Note in the graph below of SSN that it was rather inactive 1875-1935 and active 1935-60. So, did TC count drop 1935-60 vs 1875-1935? Avg TC count 1875-1935 was 8 vs 11 of 1935-60. So, it did the opposite. Of course, some of this rise likely was due to better observation. Also, most of 1935-60 was during +AMO, which itself made it more active then. But, regardless, if there really is a -correlation, this sure didn’t show it back then. And I’d still like to know the scientific connection.

 

TC count by year: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/AtlanticStormTotalsTable.pdf

[40/70 Benchmark]

40 minutes ago, bluewave said:

So we agree then since my comment about the pattern was for the mid-Atlantic to CT/RI and not the MA pike and up. 

I took it as though you meant for all of coastal SNE.....yea, I agree that without the SE ridge that could have been a general east coast snow storm. ...but my point was that set up could have worked for alot of this area including Boston metro, which as you know is not the interior NE.

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 hours 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. 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. 

This is the specific portion I was disagreeing with.....the south coast of SNE and the mid atl, sure.

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Even 2020-21 and 2021-22 were one month winters (February 2021 and January 2022) that were hit and miss here in the Philly viewing area. The early February 2021 snowstorm was a blockbuster to the north and west (not so much in the south and east), while the late January 2022 snowstorm was a blockbuster to the south and east (not so much north and west). PHL topped out at about 7.5 inches on both storms. There hasn't been a true blockbuster storm for the whole Philly viewing area since January 2016.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

13 hours 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. 

I'm talking about a North Pacific Ocean High pressure.  CPC is wacky with their measurement, it doesn't include the constant pattern. Even +EPO could have a higher N. Pacific High correlation than what they are calling RNA in those maps. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

On 6/10/2024 at 5:40 AM, snowman19 said:

While the strong -PDO and accompanying -PNA cycle is definitely playing a major role, I also think the ridiculously positive AMO is magnifying and feeding back into the SE ridge. The “stuck” MJO 4-7 may also be playing a role too

Decadal research through the 1900s does show that the AMO is correlated to SE ridge patterns. 

-AMO https://ibb.co/bR3LvKW

+AMO https://ibb.co/KctZCPm

-AMO https://ibb.co/wKX4YCC

+AMO https://ibb.co/sFSwm0j

[so_whats_happening]

10 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

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

Seems like they still are having some data not come in properly. I hope as well this gets straightened out by end of summer.

[bluewave]

9 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

I'm talking about a North Pacific Ocean High pressure.  CPC is wacky with their measurement, it doesn't include the constant pattern. Even +EPO could have a higher N. Pacific High correlation than what they are calling RNA in those maps. 

I was using the 500 mb maps and not any CPC definition.

 

9 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Decadal research through the 1900s does show that the AMO is correlated to SE ridge patterns. 

-AMO https://ibb.co/bR3LvKW

+AMO https://ibb.co/KctZCPm

-AMO https://ibb.co/wKX4YCC

+AMO https://ibb.co/sFSwm0j

The AMO index doesn’t really do justice to the extreme North Atlantic warming in recent years. The index doesn’t look nearly as impressive at the raw SSTs. This is probably why there were warm AMO periods in the 1950s to early 1960s without a Southeast ridge with a deep -PNA trough in the West and -AO -NAO Greenland block. I have actually been mentioning the rapidly warming Atlantic in relation to the record Southeast ridge since the 15-16 super El Niño.
 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

I was using the 500 mb maps and not any CPC definition.

 

The AMO index doesn’t really do justice to the extreme North Atlantic warming in recent years. The index doesn’t look nearly as impressive at the raw SSTs. This is probably why there were warm AMO periods in the 1950s to early 1960s without a Southeast ridge with a deep -PNA trough in the West and -AO -NAO Greenland block. I have actually been mentioning the rapidly warming Atlantic in relation to the record Southeast ridge since the 15-16 super El Niño.
 

 

I imagine that there will be some very memorable coastals once we enter into a Pacific regime that isn't prohibitive...I think this is the essense of how CC is manifesting. More hostile for winter weather on average, but when it isn't....look out-

[snowman19]

16 hours ago, GaWx said:

1. I’ve never heard about this. Interesting.

2. Ronnie unfortunately didn’t post a link to the study from which the tweet’s figure 1 analysis of SSN vs TC count comes. Ronnie says that strength is affected, but figure 1 says nothing about strength.

3. The study cited by the tweet says no connection between annual TC count/SSN. But it does suggest -correlation between 11 yr moving avgs. It shows 1964-2021. From late 80s-2021 as 11 year moving avg of TC count has risen, the 11 year moving avg of SSN has been dropping.

 I’m wondering if this could really be correlation without causation. We know the 11 year moving avg of TC count has been rising the last few decades due to +AMO/rising SSTs. But also NHC seems to have been naming more weak systems. Did the weakening in the prior few sunspot cycles also contribute to those increased TC counts? If so, we should start to see a drop in 11 year moving avg TC count as we go through next few years due to last 2 yrs of very active sunspots causing a new rise in SSN 11 yr avg. If there really is a connection, what is the scientific reasoning?

4. Looking at individual years, highest TC counts vs nearby averages included 2020, 2005, 1995, 1969, 1954, 1950, 1949, 1936, 1933, 1916, and 1887. What was ASO SSN for those high TC count seasons?

2020: 8

2005: 37

1995: 22

1969: 135

1954: 8

1950: 93

1949: 189

1936: 140

1933: 5

1916: 73

1887: 20

AVG: 39

 
Longterm avg SSN is likely ~~75. Thus, the avg of 39 for high TC seasons is pretty low. So, out of these 11 seasons, 6 had well below avg SSNs in ASO. Only 3 of the 11 has well above avg SSNs. Thus, this data suggests there may be a modest correlation between high TC count years and low SSN years though nothing earth shattering, especially considering a fairly small sample size.

I wish I could remember what HM said years ago about the solar/Atlantic TC correlation. There does seem like there may be a correlation between low solar and high ACE, but like you and @40/70 Benchmark said, it’s not an earth shattering one. Should be interesting to see what this high solar season produces

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, snowman19 said:

I wish I could remember what HM said years ago about the solar/Atlantic TC correlation. There does seem like there may be a correlation between low solar and high ACE, but like you and @40/70 Benchmark said, it’s not an earth shattering one. Should be interesting to see what this high solar season produces

Its like everything else....intriguing, but we need to collect more data. On the surface, I definitely see enough to warrant a closer look.

[bluewave]

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I imagine that there will be some very memorable coastals once we enter into a Pacific regime that insn't prohibitive...I think this is the essense of how CC is manifesting. More hostile for winter weather on average, but when it isn't....look out-

We are probably going to need some version of a weaker La Niña pattern correlation like we got in 20-21 in order to see any level of improvement over the last 2 winters. Our only successes with recent La Ninas were the +PNA intervals. -PNA periods haven’t worked out for us in recent years like they were able to back in the 1950s and 1960s. I have been researching the reason for the 20-21 deviation from the norm for such a robust La Niña. The only difference I could see was that the MJO 4-6 amplitude peaked in October rather than the winter through the beginning of February. Beyond that point it really didn’t matter much since we had such a good snowfall outcome already in the bank. Remember the seasonal models missed this pattern. So I will look at the MJO amplitude after we get through October in order to see if there is any positive indication there. I would be happy with just a small amount of what we got in 20-21 and even Jan 22. But absent that kind of influence, we would probably be looking at another very warm and relatively snowless -PNA Southeast ridge winter. Plus the new wild card is that will be our first winter following the record global temperature spike over the last year. 

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/did-northern-hemisphere-get-memo-years-la-niña

The pattern correlations are usually substantially positive for moderate-to-strong La Niñas, which indicates that most events share some basic similarity with the average La Niña pattern. This confirms that La Niña is a reliable source of predictability outside of the tropics (and a big reason that we have an ENSO Blog!). However, the pattern correlation for the December 2020 – January of 2021 is the lowest of the 13 events and is actually slightly negative. That means you can argue that the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere looked a little more like El Niño than La Niña!

 

 

 

[roardog]

20 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

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.

This is something that Joe Daleo wrote awhile back about solar cycle and hurricanes.

The actual radiation changes only 0.1% from solar min to solar max, so some use that to ignore the sun. BUT the ultraviolet part of the spectrum changes 6-8% from min to max and produces high level warming through ozone chemistry in low to mid latitudes (Shindell NASA) where hurricanes develop and threaten.

The most active Atlantic Basin hurricane years tend to be low sunspot years. Near the peak of the solar cycle, Hodges and Elsner found chances of a hurricane making landfall is just 25% but near solar min 64%.

[40/70 Benchmark]

49 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We are probably going to need some version of a weaker La Niña pattern correlation like we got in 20-21 in order to see any level of improvement over the last 2 winters. Our only successes with recent La Ninas were the +PNA intervals. -PNA periods haven’t worked out for us in recent years like they were able to back in the 1950s and 1960s. I have been researching the reason for the 20-21 deviation from the norm for such a robust La Niña. The only difference I could see was that the MJO 4-6 amplitude peaked in October rather than the winter through the beginning of February. Beyond that point it really didn’t matter much since we had such a good snowfall outcome already in the bank. Remember the seasonal models missed this pattern. So I will look at the MJO amplitude after we get through October in order to see if there is any positive indication there. I would be happy with just a small amount of what we got in 20-21 and even Jan 22. But absent that kind of influence, we would probably be looking at another very warm and relatively snowless -PNA Southeast ridge winter. Plus the new wild card is that will be our first winter following the record global temperature spike over the last year. 

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/did-northern-hemisphere-get-memo-years-la-niña

The pattern correlations are usually substantially positive for moderate-to-strong La Niñas, which indicates that most events share some basic similarity with the average La Niña pattern. This confirms that La Niña is a reliable source of predictability outside of the tropics (and a big reason that we have an ENSO Blog!). However, the pattern correlation for the December 2020 – January of 2021 is the lowest of the 13 events and is actually slightly negative. That means you can argue that the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere looked a little more like El Niño than La Niña!

 

 

 

Yea, I know I have been a voice of dissent over the past couple of years, but I'm not sure that will be the case this year. Its early, so you never know....but I don't see much reason to doubt another poor showing.

Two caveats:

1) Just due to random probability, we may end up getting "more" to work in our favor this season because I'm not sure its possible to get any less than we already have.

2) If we can keep SE Canada appreciably cold, maybe we can get a favorable PV orientation something akin to 2007-2008 (forget about the record snowfall part) to save New England from another bottom dwelling season.

[40/70 Benchmark]

17 minutes ago, roardog said:

This is something that Joe Daleo wrote awhile back about solar cycle and hurricanes.

The actual radiation changes only 0.1% from solar min to solar max, so some use that to ignore the sun. BUT the ultraviolet part of the spectrum changes 6-8% from min to max and produces high level warming through ozone chemistry in low to mid latitudes (Shindell NASA) where hurricanes develop and threaten.

The most active Atlantic Basin hurricane years tend to be low sunspot years. Near the peak of the solar cycle, Hodges and Elsner found chances of a hurricane making landfall is just 25% but near solar min 64%.

Yea, that's one factor, but as we well know nothing operates in a vacuum. We ultimately need to see if the other paraemters are favorable enough to overcome this.

[snowman19]

1 hour ago, roardog said:

This is something that Joe Daleo wrote awhile back about solar cycle and hurricanes.

The actual radiation changes only 0.1% from solar min to solar max, so some use that to ignore the sun. BUT the ultraviolet part of the spectrum changes 6-8% from min to max and produces high level warming through ozone chemistry in low to mid latitudes (Shindell NASA) where hurricanes develop and threaten.

The most active Atlantic Basin hurricane years tend to be low sunspot years. Near the peak of the solar cycle, Hodges and Elsner found chances of a hurricane making landfall is just 25% but near solar min 64%.

This has refreshed my recollection of what HM said about this. Now that you mentioned ozone and ultraviolet I do remember him saying something about that with regard to solar and the tropical season in the Atlantic, although I forget the exact details he mentioned back then

[bluewave]

42 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Yea, I know I have been a voice of dissent over the past couple of years, but I'm not sure that will be the case this year. Its early, so you never know....but I don't see much reason to doubt another poor showing.

Two caveats:

1) Just due to random probability, we may end up getting "more" to work in our favor this season because I'm not sure its possible to get any less than we already have.

2) If we can keep SE Canada appreciably cold, maybe we can get a favorable PV orientation something akin to 2007-2008 (forget about the record snowfall part) to save New England from another bottom dwelling season.

Yeah, the early indications based on the strength of this -PDO and forecast La Niña background state would argue for our 10th consecutive warmer than normal winter here in the Northeast. But not sure yet whether we can see some improvement in the snowfall department over the last two seasons. We may get some clues with the October potential early MJO indicator which has worked with all La Ninas back to 2010. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

18 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, the early indications based on the strength of this -PDO and forecast La Niña background state would argue for our 10th consecutive warmer than normal winter here in the Northeast. But not sure yet whether we can see some improvement in the snowfall department over the last two seasons. We may get some clues with the October potential early MJO indicator which has worked with all La Ninas back to 2010. 

So from what you were saying, a strong MJO 4-6 amplitude in October would be a positive (less negative, anyway) indicator for winter prospects, correct?

[bluewave]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

So from what you were saying, a strong MJO 4-6 amplitude in October would be a positive (less negative, anyway) indicator for winter prospects, correct?

I am not sure why this relationship has worked for every La Niña year since 10-11. But the  La Niña Octobers with a more amplified MJO 4-6 went on to have better snowfall than the years with weaker October MJO 4-7 activity. But all the La Niña years since 11-12 were warmer than normal regardless of what the MJO did in October. So it only seems to work for snowfall. The first grouping of years was 10-11 and 11-12. The October 2010 MJO 4-6 was much stronger in 2010 than 2011. This was followed by October 2017 having a more amplified 4-6 than 2016. More recently October 2020 had the strongest MJO 4-6 activity out of the 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 La Niña. It works for RMM and velocity potential anomalies. That being said, who knows if this pattern will continue again since it only began in 2010 and the oceans have seen such a big increase in heat last few years. 
 

 

 

 

[snowman19]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

I am not sure why this relationship has worked for every La Niña year since 10-11. But the  La Niña Octobers with a more amplified MJO 4-6 went on to have better snowfall than the years with weaker October MJO 4-7 activity. But all the La Niña years since 11-12 were warmer than normal regardless of what the MJO did in October. So it only seems to work for snowfall. The first grouping of years was 10-11 and 11-12. The October 2010 MJO 4-6 was much stronger in 2010 than 2011. This was followed by October 2017 having a more amplified 4-6 than 2016. More recently October 2020 had the strongest MJO 4-6 activity out of the 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 La Niña. It works for RMM and velocity potential anomalies. That being said, who knows if this pattern will continue again since it only began in 2010 and the oceans have seen such a big increase in heat last few years. 
 

 

 

 

October, 2017 did have the amplified MJO 4-6. HOWEVER, there were other big red flag clues that it was going to be a decent winter…You had a -QBO, a moderate east-based La Niña, a neutral PDO, a solar minimum, AGW wasn’t out of control at that point, the AMO wasn’t super positive yet, the IOD wasn’t overpowering and you had a non volcanic stratosphere. It all culminated in the record SSWE in mid-February which resulted SPV annihilation and massive AO/NAO blocking in March

[40/70 Benchmark]

@GaWxLarry, please link that RONI forecast produt again?

Thanks.

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

October, 2017 did have the amplified MJO 4-6. HOWEVER, there were other big red flag clues that it was going to be a decent winter…You had a -QBO, a moderate east-based La Niña, a neutral PDO, a solar minimum, AGW wasn’t out of control at that point, the AMO wasn’t super positive yet, the IOD wasn’t overpowering and you had a non volcanic stratosphere. It all culminated in the record SSWE in mid-February which resulted SPV annihilation and massive AO/NAO blocking in March

Only thing I will say is that we were already past that theorized 2015 "tipping point" that accompanied that uber el nino.....which is probably why even that season managed the uber-warm February in advance of/during the SSW.

But I agree with the premise that 2017 is not a good analog.