Has the NINA Peaked?

[TXWXCHX]

I don't know if anyone has update the stats and charts for a while.

*The latest tri-monthly came in at -1.4, making this an "official" La Nina. 1988 was the last time there was an OND reading that low.

*BOM released their latest update today:

*The latest weekly 3.4 reading is -1.5, up from the two month low of -1.7 the previous week.

*The subsurface is still chilly

Thank you for posting. I was looking at this yesterday and futilely trying to puzzle out all the teleconnections. This La Nina is a wild one, at least for us in terms of temperature; considering that we have gotten any precipitation at all in Central Texas, I suppose that could be considered anomalous in some ways. The strength of this La Nina combined with the -PDO and +AMO had led me to make a forecast of warmer than normal winter with drought, (we are cooler, but we *do* have drought) , but the slight rains have still been a surprise.

How does the influence of a strongly -AO, -NAO and -PDO (with the possiblity of a prematurely negative trending AMO) affect blocking? I wonder, with the persistance of this La Nina being forecast into Summer 2011, do we have the possiblity of entrenched, long range highs/blocking patterns for the summer as well?

The possiblity of a -AMO could change the game for us here regarding precipitation, at least long term. -PDO, -AMO has been associated with much lower than normal chances for drought in our area, which could affect long term planning for agriculture and emergency services in a most welcome manner... if the AMO is in play from a positive to a negative trend, it might explain the anomalous patterns of this strong of a La Nina.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html

[Isotherm]

Your ideas how important the blocking was certainly were better than mine. I did like a cold December but thought Jan would start modifying and be a little above normal and that Fen would be the warmest month relative to normal in the DC area. I liked Zwyts Capital Weather Gang forecast but with less snow for DC than he was calling for. Clearly, the blocking and AO are dominating the pattern even more than usually occurs with a nina and a negative AO. But then again, though I like to argue and toy with long range thoughts, I'm no long range guy. This year, day 3 forecasts have been hard enough to fathom. Anyway, both you and Okie have done a good job so far this winter.

Wes

Wes,

Thanks a lot for the comments. This winter has certainly been interesting so far, with the severity of the recent blocking episode simply incredible for any season nevermind a strong nina. Solar pattern definitely seems to exerting its influence. I hope your area can benefit from January's -NAO/AO episode, maybe the event next week will be a big hit for you guys. Looks more favorable as we have a potential Miller A/southern s/w in the picture. Either way, it's nice to have a nina buck the recent climate trends and bring us back to the 50s/60s type regime!

[VAwxman]

I said -1.8C to -2.0C so looks as if we were quite similar.

I am not a "know nothing weenie". My Winter 09-10 forecast was right on the money as were the analogs presented....my December 2010 forecast also came out pretty darn well. I had a better verification than HM, surely one of the experts, who said that December would look more like 1954 with widespread warm anomalies over the Midwest/Plains...I said 1955 with cold in these areas. Looks as if I did well. I think everyone on the forum should have a right to forecast and debate with the experts. Indeed, it seems as if amateur forecasts for Winter 10-11 (okie333, Isotherm, etc) have been doing better than many professional ones this winter because they relied more on experimental solar/blocking theories rather than tried-and-true ENSO formulas which have been a massive fail this winter. A lot of the meteorologists on this board also need to be challenged by amateurs as it forces them to look at different perspectives and explain their reasoning for everyone.

While some of the things may not have been said the best way, I do agree with the overall point you make here. Sure we as mets have a much better background on the physical processes and in theory should be able to make better forecasts over the long run, but we do need to be challenged with new ideas. It is a good thing. As soon as any met thinks they have things figured out, and totally shuts out ideas from elsewhere, they are domming themselves to failure. There is just way too much we don't yet know.

[nzucker]

While some of the things may not have been said the best way, I do agree with the overall point you make here. Sure we as mets have a much better background on the physical processes and in theory should be able to make better forecasts over the long run, but we do need to be challenged with new ideas. It is a good thing. As soon as any met thinks they have things figured out, and totally shuts out ideas from elsewhere, they are domming themselves to failure. There is just way too much we don't yet know.

Yeah, this was really my point...not to say that mets are making biased forecasts and need to be "taught a lesson" or anything. You guys, especially the energy mets on here, definitely have the upper hand on understanding how the physical intricacies of the atmosphere play out; to me, it's much more abstract and disjointed for me than to someone who has a full physics and calculus background (I was a Spanish major in college). But these same advantages can sometimes become a disadvantage in unusual situations like Winter 10-11 where 1+1 just doesn't equal 2. Sure, any energy met would be wise to forecast that a +QBO and a strong Niña means a colder stratosphere and thus less arctic outbreaks with a more neutral AO/NAO, but is this the right call in such strange times as ours? Some of the amateur minds who were able to risk it on a hunch about the solar connection to the NAO, and some largely unreliable old analogs like those from the Dalton Minimum or the early 1900s, actually did better this winter and challenged the professionals. The problem with LR forecasting is there's always something new that comes up just when we think we have a grasp on complex matters like the Holton-Tan relationships, their extension to solar minimums and maximums within the 11-year cycle, and what that means for our winters. Also, because we're human and have a short lifetime, we tend to be easily convinced by seemingly similar winters that happened recently in our lives such as 07-08 and 99-00...we often forget that these atmospheric cycles have played out differently over the eons, in many cycles and patterns beyond our comprehension...not every strong Niña winter was a warm one for Florida or a snowless one for NYC/ORF, doubtlessly. With the Aleutian ridge being higher in latitude and more amplified than its normal La Niña configuration, and the record-breaking block over the High Arctic, Winter 10-11 has turned out totally different from anything a reasonably conservative and knowledgeable forecaster could have predicted.

[A-L-E-X]

While some of the things may not have been said the best way, I do agree with the overall point you make here. Sure we as mets have a much better background on the physical processes and in theory should be able to make better forecasts over the long run, but we do need to be challenged with new ideas. It is a good thing. As soon as any met thinks they have things figured out, and totally shuts out ideas from elsewhere, they are domming themselves to failure. There is just way too much we don't yet know.

This is a problem with all of the sciences. One of the chief reasons for this is science has become too specialized and unfortunately, tends to isolate people within their respective fields, making them unaware of advances being made in other sciences-- even ones that have a direct bearing on their little niche. This is the major disadvantage of reductionism. The human ego is the other.

[VAwxman]

The human ego is the other.

Yes this is another big factor, one which I see all too often especially considering all the uncertainties in this field.

[HM]

While some of the things may not have been said the best way, I do agree with the overall point you make here. Sure we as mets have a much better background on the physical processes and in theory should be able to make better forecasts over the long run, but we do need to be challenged with new ideas. It is a good thing. As soon as any met thinks they have things figured out, and totally shuts out ideas from elsewhere, they are domming themselves to failure. There is just way too much we don't yet know.

Well this is true. However, I was brought up and what he is saying is actually not true. Whether or not he believes me, for my Midwestern clients in December and January (generally Chicago-Indie) I went below normal for temperatures. I went below normal in the East as well for December. I also put the coldest anomalies in the Southeast United States for December. The ability to act and see how things are evolving like what you expected or not expected is another trait I think all long range forecasters need to develop. These changes, by the way, didn't happen 12/1 either. I just mean, you see how things are playing out in the autumn and you act on them. The other thing he keeps implying is that we didn't rely on the low sun factor and we didn't use experimental ideas. Actually, it was one of the reasons I didn't go even more positive with my NAO call. I'm not going to sit here and say I was forecasting a -NAO winter; we were all pretty much arguing on which side of zero the average would fall but everyone was basically neutral given the conflicting factors. My point is: we need to spend time trying to figure out what prevailed overall here to send the AO/NAO into a very negative state and stop taking credit for calling for it when you basically didn't.

[HM]

Yeah, this was really my point...not to say that mets are making biased forecasts and need to be "taught a lesson" or anything. You guys, especially the energy mets on here, definitely have the upper hand on understanding how the physical intricacies of the atmosphere play out; to me, it's much more abstract and disjointed for me than to someone who has a full physics and calculus background (I was a Spanish major in college). But these same advantages can sometimes become a disadvantage in unusual situations like Winter 10-11 where 1+1 just doesn't equal 2. Sure, any energy met would be wise to forecast that a +QBO and a strong Niña means a colder stratosphere and thus less arctic outbreaks with a more neutral AO/NAO, but is this the right call in such strange times as ours? Some of the amateur minds who were able to risk it on a hunch about the solar connection to the NAO, and some largely unreliable old analogs like those from the Dalton Minimum or the early 1900s, actually did better this winter and challenged the professionals. The problem with LR forecasting is there's always something new that comes up just when we think we have a grasp on complex matters like the Holton-Tan relationships, their extension to solar minimums and maximums within the 11-year cycle, and what that means for our winters. Also, because we're human and have a short lifetime, we tend to be easily convinced by seemingly similar winters that happened recently in our lives such as 07-08 and 99-00...we often forget that these atmospheric cycles have played out differently over the eons, in many cycles and patterns beyond our comprehension...not every strong Niña winter was a warm one for Florida or a snowless one for NYC/ORF, doubtlessly. With the Aleutian ridge being higher in latitude and more amplified than its normal La Niña configuration, and the record-breaking block over the High Arctic, Winter 10-11 has turned out totally different from anything a reasonably conservative and knowledgeable forecaster could have predicted.

A few things here:

1. The +QBO/Niña doesn't always mean a cold stratosphere but usually means the vortex is stronger/tighter. But either way, this doesn't mean less Arctic Outbreaks because you don't always have to get an Arctic blast from a stratospheric warming, right? The bottom-top effect can just as easily disturb the tropospheric vortex and cause a severe -AO. The EPO threats can just as easily create Arctic outbreaks. When I said January would have an Arctic blast, it was based on these things and not some stratospheric warming that would downwell for January.

2. The part where you say, "Some of the amateur minds who were able to risk it on a hunch about the solar connection to the NAO," is false. There is not one person who predicted how massive this blocking episode would be from the autumn. Sure, we knew as we got closer that we were in for something but I am talking about winter outlooks. The only thing I got right was the first wave of the -NAO but failed on the strength and how long it would last. You cannot possibly take credit for what occurred when you went slightly below normal for a full winter average in the NAO. Do you think that is unreasonable to say?

3. I agree about the last part of your paragraph about each La Niña doesn't have to act like the events we grew to know back in the 1990s/2000s.

[Ji]

Hm looking forward to your latest thoughts on next week. I wonder if we see a 2 week Jan 2000 stretch of winter weather before a good warmup

[HM]

This is a problem with all of the sciences. One of the chief reasons for this is science has become too specialized and unfortunately, tends to isolate people within their respective fields, making them unaware of advances being made in other sciences-- even ones that have a direct bearing on their little niche. This is the major disadvantage of reductionism. The human ego is the other.

Yes this is another big factor, one which I see all too often especially considering all the uncertainties in this field.

I agree that an open mind and multiple-mixing of sciences is a great idea. There are many things you'll see that are quite similar in fields like cosmology or biology for example. But let's be real here, I know what you guys mean by the ego statements, but let's face...you got to have a pretty heightened ego to have the audacity to try to explain something like weather. This is especially true where we don't have computers to aid us, like long range forecasting.

I just felt like playing opposition here, but in theory I know and agree with what you guys mean. All I am saying is that fundamentally as forecasters, you are likely to have a moderate ego. But some are worse than others for sure and it better not cloud judgement.

[A-L-E-X]

I agree that an open mind and multiple-mixing of sciences is a great idea. There are many things you'll see that are quite similar in fields like cosmology or biology for example. But let's be real here, I know what you guys mean by the ego statements, but let's face...you got to have a pretty heightened ego to have the audacity to try to explain something like weather. This is especially true where we don't have computers to aid us, like long range forecasting.

I just felt like playing opposition here, but in theory I know and agree with what you guys mean. All I am saying is that fundamentally as forecasters, you are likely to have a moderate ego. But some are worse than others for sure and it better not cloud judgement.

Totally agree with you about that-- ego/confidence/even arrogance is needed to some extent, but its a fine line-- that's why you see some of the greatest minds of science who were pioneers become stubborn and become conservative as they get older and become part of the status quo. Its about as much of a fine line as the one between genius and madness lol.

I know you and Nate have had some disagreements, but I think he highly respects you for your pioneering work. I think we all remember the call for a neg nao and cold weather in December and the idea that solar info was inputted otherwise the call would have been for a pos nao with the mod-strong nina we have in place. This thing has pretty much thrown everyone for a loop with what's happened since then.

[HM]

Totally agree with you about that-- ego/confidence/even arrogance is needed to some extent, but its a fine line-- that's why you see some of the greatest minds of science who were pioneers become stubborn and become conservative as they get older and become part of the status quo. Its about as much of a fine line as the one between genius and madness lol.

Yeah in school, I came across older guys who were awesome, willing to help and develop your ideas. However, I also came across several who wanted to sell me something, haha. Obviously at some point, it becomes political or in the school's interest etc. But I think we've got thinkers on this board who are willing to listen to something new. So, at least we have this as a safe haven.

[A-L-E-X]

Yeah in school, I came across older guys who were awesome, willing to help and develop your ideas. However, I also came across several who wanted to sell me something, haha. Obviously at some point, it becomes political or in the school's interest etc. But I think we've got thinkers on this board who are willing to listen to something new. So, at least we have this as a safe haven.

Yeah, the internet has really helped the landscape. Back in school, I spent 12 hours a day researching stuff through the library, having to cross check different ideas against one another and -- now its so much easier

Some of the older guys are really good, and the benefit of experience you get from them makes up for all the bad apples. Because no matter how much research you read up on, there is always a human element that gets lost in the translation and which can only be made up for in the transferral of years of wisdom.

[HM]

I know you and Nate have had some disagreements, but I think he highly respects you for your pioneering work. I think we all remember the call for a neg nao and cold weather in December and the idea that solar info was inputted otherwise the call would have been for a pos nao with the mod-strong nina we have in place. This thing has pretty much thrown everyone for a loop with what's happened since then.

I respect Nate and I don't know if he believes me anymore, but I look forward to his thoughts. The only time I got mad was when that thing with Nikolai went down and they were accusing me of trying to take credit for something when I wasn't doing that at all.

[A-L-E-X]

I respect Nate and I don't know if he believes me anymore, but I look forward to his thoughts. The only time I got mad was when that thing with Nikolai went down and they were accusing me of trying to take credit for something when I wasn't doing that at all.

Yeah it really bothers me when people try twisting words around or taking something out of context, whether intentional in trying to instigate something or just doing it out of misunderstanding and then persisting in the misunderstanding even when told otherwise. I dont know if thats what happened, but it seemed like it from the little I saw.

[A-L-E-X]

BTW HM, this is probably way out there, but the other day Chuck, Tip and I were having a discussion on other factors besides solar which might be causing this really anomalous blocking. Some of the things we were talking about were the BP oil spill having a slight effect on the gulf stream which might have been magnified over time and downstream, magnetic field reversal (which is in the process of happening) and some other factors that might lead to anomalous patterns. Do you think any of these ideas might factor into whats going on? Even a little?

[HM]

Yeah it really bothers me when people try twisting words around or taking something out of context, whether intentional in trying to instigate something or just doing it out of misunderstanding and then persisting in the misunderstanding even when told otherwise. I dont know if thats what happened, but it seemed like it from the little I saw.

That's pretty much what happened. It actually made me angry. It is hard to get angry from a message board, but that's what happened.

BTW HM, this is probably way out there, but the other day Chuck, Tip and I were having a discussion on other factors besides solar which might be causing this really anomalous blocking. Some of the things we were talking about were the BP oil spill having a slight effect on the gulf stream which might have been magnified over time and downstream, magnetic field reversal (which is in the process of happening) and some other factors that might lead to anomalous patterns. Do you think any of these ideas might factor into whats going on? Even a little?

Alex, can you link me to this? I missed the discussion. I would lean more toward the magnetic field and snow cover over the oil spill at this point, but don't hold me to that yet.

[A-L-E-X]

That's pretty much what happened. It actually made me angry. It is hard to get angry from a message board, but that's what happened.

Alex, can you link me to this? I missed the discussion. I would lean more toward the magnetic field and snow cover over the oil spill at this point, but don't hold me to that yet.

HM Opera 11 doesnt seem to be able to post links (it shows me viewing the board index), but I was able to bump the thread to the top of the pile, and I replied to a post which was where we started discussing alternate influences.

The thing about magnetic reversals that struck me was that rapid weather changes seem to occur after magnetic reversals that come after large lulls when there is stability-- for example there was a large period of time during the Cretaceous when we didnt have a magnetic field reversal and right when it happened the climate got colder. Now, the asteroid that hit the Yucatan probably made it more extreme than it otherwise would have been, but there have also been other short term climate variations that have occurred after long periods of magnetic stability that ended with reversals. The snow cover feedback idea is another great one; I remember Brian showing maps of how snow cover and temp anomalies have been well correlated this year, especially in Europe.

The thread I bumped is an old euro thread which has magnetic field reversal in the subtitle. Okie333 also posted a nice article in there talking about how the reversal is affecting different parts of the southern hemisphere already.

[skierinvermont]

A few things here:

1. The +QBO/Niña doesn't always mean a cold stratosphere but usually means the vortex is stronger/tighter. But either way, this doesn't mean less Arctic Outbreaks because you don't always have to get an Arctic blast from a stratospheric warming, right? The bottom-top effect can just as easily disturb the tropospheric vortex and cause a severe -AO. The EPO threats can just as easily create Arctic outbreaks. When I said January would have an Arctic blast, it was based on these things and not some stratospheric warming that would downwell for January.

2. The part where you say, "Some of the amateur minds who were able to risk it on a hunch about the solar connection to the NAO," is false. There is not one person who predicted how massive this blocking episode would be from the autumn. Sure, we knew as we got closer that we were in for something but I am talking about winter outlooks. The only thing I got right was the first wave of the -NAO but failed on the strength and how long it would last. You cannot possibly take credit for what occurred when you went slightly below normal for a full winter average in the NAO. Do you think that is unreasonable to say?

3. I agree about the last part of your paragraph about each La Niña doesn't have to act like the events we grew to know back in the 1990s/2000s.

The other thing to consider is there are hundreds of amateurs on here and some of them are bound to get the forecast correct by chance. But unless the physical reasoning is correct it doesn't mean anything.

[nzucker]

I respect Nate and I don't know if he believes me anymore, but I look forward to his thoughts. The only time I got mad was when that thing with Nikolai went down and they were accusing me of trying to take credit for something when I wasn't doing that at all.

I certainly believe you...I'd like to hear if you're forecasting a warm-up for February, or if we're going to continue seeing these brutally cold and snowy conditions across the country. I think that most of your forecasts have been spot on this winter, except perhaps not believing the NAO was going to average negative and saying the spell of -NAO in early December was a short-lived one when it seems to be dominating the winter. You certainly picked up well on the potential for extreme cold in the Southeast (which looks to continue this January) and the huge -EPO block that is developing. This -EPO could lead to one of the most memorable and widespread arctic outbreaks in years.

Do you believe the -EPO block is being formed by mountain torque events coming off the Himalayas, amplifying the normal Aleutian ridge we see in a La Nina? In that case, it wouldn't be so much a manifestation of a warmer stratosphere/polar vortex weakness. But I am hearing that stratospheric temperatures are climbing, which could signal the start of a more traditional blocking period based in a MWW. Is this the case, HM? Could this argue for a colder February as well with the record-breaking NAO/AO continuing?

I did pretty well on December this year, but my January forecast is going to be a total bust. I really thought the blocking would be breaking down at this point due to the influence of the strong Nina and +QBO, when in reality it seems to be intensifying. I did have negative anomalies in the Mountain West and Pacific NW with troughiness there, which seems to be correct, but I had a warm-up in the East. It looks to be a country wide cold spell for the most part, unfortunately for my forecast.

[tacoman25]

BTW HM, this is probably way out there, but the other day Chuck, Tip and I were having a discussion on other factors besides solar which might be causing this really anomalous blocking. Some of the things we were talking about were the BP oil spill having a slight effect on the gulf stream which might have been magnified over time and downstream, magnetic field reversal (which is in the process of happening) and some other factors that might lead to anomalous patterns. Do you think any of these ideas might factor into whats going on? Even a little?

Some of that is possible, I guess, but I think that given what happened last winter as well (before the BP oil spill and any magnetic field reversal...?) that probably isn't a major factor.

[A-L-E-X]

Some of that is possible, I guess, but I think that given what happened last winter as well (before the BP oil spill and any magnetic field reversal...?) that probably isn't a major factor.

Its a long shot lol-- I think Chuck brought up the oil spill because of being surprised at the strong block not giving way to the mod-strong la nina..... the magnetic field reversal is actually a slow process that has been ongoing. Theyre both long shots, I agree.

[A-L-E-X]

I certainly believe you...I'd like to hear if you're forecasting a warm-up for February, or if we're going to continue seeing these brutally cold and snowy conditions across the country. I think that most of your forecasts have been spot on this winter, except perhaps not believing the NAO was going to average negative and saying the spell of -NAO in early December was a short-lived one when it seems to be dominating the winter. You certainly picked up well on the potential for extreme cold in the Southeast (which looks to continue this January) and the huge -EPO block that is developing. This -EPO could lead to one of the most memorable and widespread arctic outbreaks in years.

Do you believe the -EPO block is being formed by mountain torque events coming off the Himalayas, amplifying the normal Aleutian ridge we see in a La Nina? In that case, it wouldn't be so much a manifestation of a warmer stratosphere/polar vortex weakness. But I am hearing that stratospheric temperatures are climbing, which could signal the start of a more traditional blocking period based in a MWW. Is this the case, HM? Could this argue for a colder February as well with the record-breaking NAO/AO continuing?

I did pretty well on December this year, but my January forecast is going to be a total bust. I really thought the blocking would be breaking down at this point due to the influence of the strong Nina and +QBO, when in reality it seems to be intensifying. I did have negative anomalies in the Mountain West and Pacific NW with troughiness there, which seems to be correct, but I had a warm-up in the East. It looks to be a country wide cold spell for the most part, unfortunately for my forecast.

Hmm sounds like 1978-79, if you want country wide cold, that was the year for it.

[hckyplayer8]

December MEI value rise.

-1.519

[JBG]

Its a long shot lol-- I think Chuck brought up the oil spill because of being surprised at the strong block not giving way to the mod-strong la nina..... the magnetic field reversal is actually a slow process that has been ongoing. Theyre both long shots, I agree.

Echoing what many have said, we have a very small sample size of moderate-strong Niñas after 1950. From what I'm reading this winter is a lot like 1909-10 or 1916-7, so it may really be a case of "back to the future".

December MEI value rise.

-1.519

Perhaps another break rather than peak? I suspect that we are back to some of the earlier, classic multi-year Niñas from the solar and magnetic factors as well as other cyclical factors.

[A-L-E-X]

Echoing what many have said, we have a very small sample size of moderate-strong Niñas after 1950. From what I'm reading this winter is a lot like 1909-10 or 1916-7, so it may really be a case of "back to the future".Perhaps another break rather than peak? I suspect that we are back to some of the earlier, classic multi-year Niñas from the solar and magnetic factors as well as other cyclical factors.

Yes, I know people had hesitancy with those analogs because they were from so long ago, but we havent had sustained blocking that strong in a mod or strong nina since those years (also including 1955-56.)

[JBG]

Yes, I know people had hesitancy with those analogs because they were from so long ago, but we havent had sustained blocking that strong in a mod or strong nina since those years (also including 1955-56.)

Could the same return to retro-Niñas also give us the string of hot summers the Northeast had from 1952-1955? Over 100 the first three of those, and 1955 was even more of a scorcher though without reaching 100.

[A-L-E-X]

Could the same return to retro-Niñas also give us the string of hot summers the Northeast had from 1952-1955? Over 100 the first three of those, and 1955 was even more of a scorcher though without reaching 100.

Or the 1930s, which Im told, also featured a set of la ninas that had very hot summers and very cold winters.

[uncle W]

Or the 1930s, which Im told, also featured a set of la ninas that had very hot summers and very cold winters.

the 1930's didn't have any strong la nina winters...

ftp://www.coaps.fsu.edu/pub/JMA_SST_Index/jmasst1868-today.filter-5

[uncle W]

the 1930's didn't have any strong la nina winters...

ftp://www.coaps.fsu....-today.filter-5

according to those numbers here is a list of the strongest la nina winters...

1916-17...-22

1892-93...-15

1942-43...-15

1973-74...-15

1909-10...-14

1970-71...-14

1975-76...-14

1949-50...-13

1955-56...-13

1988-89...-13

1999-00...-13

2010-11...-13? estimated

1873-74...-12

2007-08...-12

1875-76...-11

1945-46...-11

1872-73...-10

1908-09...-10

1967-68...-10