2025-2026 ENSO

[bluewave]

24 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

You keep passing off these sweeping judgements, such as the "the long 30 year cycles have become a thing of the past" as if they are fact...they aren't. Its your opnion. Then if an index doesn't fit your agenda, you dismiss it and insert some alternate index. It doesn't work that way....I may consider the ONI archaic, but I still factor it in. I just include other metrics to more accurately depict the intensity of modern ENSO events.

My only agenda has been getting the pattern correct. I have to chuckle when I see posts  such as yours which often use the term agenda. Since agenda is generally a political term that has nothing to do with weather and climate forecasting. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, bluewave said:

My only agenda has been getting the pattern correct. I have to chuckle when I see posts  such as yours which often use the term agenda. Since agenda is generally a political term that has nothing to do with weather and climate forecasting. 

And I chuckle when folks have yet to realize that CC has been as heavily politicized as any other topic. Again...I urge you to begin a poll in which folks can chime in anonymously regarding whether or not you follow the data, or engineer the data to follow your preconceived notion. If the majority doesn't believe that you have a bias, then I'll venmo you $300.

You have this air of superiority as if you aren't prone to the same biases that we mere mortals are....I'm going to let you in on a little secret....come closer....(whispers) you're human, too. Thus its important to wait on these sweeping proclomations that dispell theories supported by at least several decades of data. Perhaps you are 100% correct on everything, I wouldn't necessarily doubt it, you seem bright; but we do not know that yet.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

I absolutely have a bias towards cold and snow that I have been working to mitigate and the only way to begin successfully doing so is to own it. If your only agenda is truly to get the pattern correct, then I would suggest taking the self-preserving-blinders off and develop even a modicum of personal insight.

[bluewave]

24 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

And I chuckle when folks have yet to realize that CC has been as heavily politicized as any other topic. Again...I urge you to begin a poll in which folks can chime in anonymously regarding whether or not you follow the data, or engineer the data to follow your preconceived notion. If the majority doesn't believe that you have a bias, then I'll venmo you $300.

You have this air of superiority as if you aren't prone to the same biases that we mere mortals are....I'm going to let you in on a little secret....come close....(whispers) you're human, too.

Something human I see about your posts is that they involve a large degree of projection. I can tell you are bothered about the lack of cold and snowy winters and it’s leading to you being very critical of anyone that is pointing out the obvious. Viewing scientific principles through political filter usually doesn’t lead to success. But sometimes people are willing to sacrifice forecast accuracy in service to holding onto outdated beliefs which provide emotional comfort.

What you classify as superiority is actually maintaining focus on the big picture. I have worked very hard to eliminate biases over the years. It’s actually been easier to do with weather statistics and patterns which hold no emotion for me. Maybe this is what you are perceiving as superiority. I try not to get emotional about the weather and climate. 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

34 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Something human I see about your posts is that they involve a large degree of projection. I can tell you are bothered about the lack of cold and snowy winters and it’s leading to you being very critical of anyone that is pointing out the obvious. Viewing scientific principles through political filter usually doesn’t lead to success. But sometimes people are willing to sacrifice forecast accuracy in service to holding onto outdated beliefs. 

What you classify as superiority is actually maintaining focus on the big picture. I have worked very hard to eliminate biases over the years. It’s actually been easier to do with weather statistics and patterns which hold no emotion for me. Maybe this is what you are perceiving as superiority. I try not to get emotional about the weather and climate. 

 

Another problem you have is that you are often critical of my work when I can tell for a fact that you don't read it. If you had read my publication from last season, which was predicated upon many of your points, then you would not be coming to that conclusion.

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2024/11/using-past-forecasting-difficulty-to.html

Keep working at eliminating biases, which is mutually exclusive with being human (thanks for proving my point) because I have news for you...you haven't eliminated them yet.

The rest of us mere mortals will focus on reducing our biaes.

BTW, as a LICSW, I am well schooled in the defense mechanism of projection, which inherently entails an element of struggle for the "projector" to accept and become conscious of the unwanted thoughts and/or feelings that they are attempting to project....I just admitted I have a bias that I am working to mitigate.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

I disagree with your assessment about a cold phase since 1998. The PDO has been shorter cycling than it was prior to the 1990s. So we have been getting alternating +PDO and -PDO cycles since then.

This is why the 2010s into the 2020s have experienced such a rapid shift between the record +PDO in 2015 to record -PDO in the early 2020s. Those long 30 year cycles have become a thing of the past. Plus the rapid warming of the Western Pacific has altered the way the PDOs have been relating to our sensible weather. So canonical expectations based solely on PDO phase have not been working out. 

-PDOs of recent years have been much different from earlier -PDOs due to the 2nd EOF running so warm. So this has lead to much warmer and less snowy -PDOs then were experienced in the past. We also experienced record warmth with the +PDO in December 2015. So not seeing how another +PDO in coming years if it were to evolve would necessarily be any cooler than the recent -PDOs.

The colder 13-14 into 14-15 period was more a result of the +TNH and +NPM pattern. But as we saw last winter, the stronger Northern Stream of the Pacific Jet muted that influence. So no cold trough was able to develop in Canada like we saw in 13-14. This is why when I saw the Pacific Jet and storm tracks last December I said early on that we weren’t going to see another 13-14 repeat like some on twitter were calling for. 

Mmm... might help your case if you wrote a post that connects the dots with empirical data supporting this ( bold ).   

I mean, I lean in your favor on that in principle.   Particularly the "...PDO phase have not been working out..."  part.   I would extend this to all quadrature, however.  Ex, the ENSOs have increased intra-mode frequencies whence the larger hemispheric circulation construct types sort of strain correlation.  Some times not appearing to really even be coupled.   This is tendencies, mind you - we're not attempting to abase thermodynamic theory between ocean-air-land with this.  This is conjecture based on observation. 

But, there's a way to disrupt correlations without challenging the school. I began commenting with Ray years ago that, in general, how field observation results have begun to shake confidence in using teleconnectors in on-going correlation -based corrections. Operational weather forecasting's been stressed.  A personal speculation:  during the recent decades, increasing basal flow velocities have been observed (empirically). This may be effecting patterns into changing faster.  There's a gestation limitation in time where if the mass field modulation takes place too quickly ... this doesn't give events within it time enough to manifest; " exceeding the time-dependency on event specifics".  Example... a crashing -NAO, doesn't last long enough for the sloped pattern through the lakes to manifest, because the L/W perturbs too quickly and the whole thing deconstructs itself.

This may happen at all scales and dimensions.  The PDO probably needs more time to be a huge driver; as a cumulative exertion, the momentum needs time to gather enough to correlate. But with the hurried transition rate and higher resonance, the system's moved on prior to seeing the better correlation.  This is all very intuitive to me personally.. And these ideas do seem to 'fit' your conjecture.

That said,  ... unless we have data to support - which I don't personally have admittedly - this is just based on our existential impression of the world. It's anecdotal in a sense. It may be entirely right.  It may be entirely wrong.   Neither of those states is very typical though in speculative "art" in this shit.  Somewhere in the middle is probably where the truth resides, but data tells us on which side of the 50/50 line. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Mmm... might help your case if you wrote a post that connects the dots with empirical data supporting this ( bold ).   

I mean, I lean in your favor on that in principle.   Particularly the "...PDO phase have not been working out..."  part.   I would extend this to all quadrature, however.  Ex, the ENSOs have increased intra-mode frequencies whence the larger hemispheric circulation constructs types sort of strain correlation.  Some times not appearing to really even be coupled.   This is tendencies, mind you - we're not attempting to abase thermodynamic theory between ocean-air-land with this.  This is conjecture based on observation. 

But, that's a way to disrupt correlations without challenging the school. I begin commenting with Ray years ago that, in general, field observation results have begun to shake confidence in using teleconnectors in on-going correlation -based corrections in operational weather forecasting.  A personal speculation:  during the recent decades, increasing basal flow velocities have been observed (empirically). This maybe effecting pattern to change faster.  There's a gestation limitation in time where if the mass field modulation takes place too quickly ... this doesn't give events within it time enough to manifest; " exceeding the time-dependency on event specifics".  Example... a crashing -NAO, doesn't last long enough for the sloped pattern through the lakes to manifest, because the L/W perturbs quickly and the whole thing deconstructs itself.

This may happen at all scales and dimensions.  The PDO probably needs more time to be a huge driver, as a cumulative exertion, the momentum gathers enough to correlate. But with the hurried transition rate and higher resonance, the system's moved on prior to seeing the better correlation.  This is all very intuitive to me personally..

That said,  ... unless we have data to support - which I don't personally have admittedly - this is just based on our existential impression of the world. It's anecdotal in a sense - it may be entirely right.  It may be entirely wrong.   Neither of those states is very typical though.  Somewhere in the middle is probably where the truth resides, but data tells us on which side of the 50/50 line. 

That may very well be true, and this is part of the reason why I think its important to wait until we get into the 2030s before assuming some of these larger scale changes. That is all I am saying....I not at all a CC denier, believe me.

Very reasonable take, John.

[bluewave]

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Another problem you have is that you are often critical of my work when I can tell for a fact that you don't read it. If you had read my publication from last season, which was predicated upon many of your points, then you would not be coming to that conclusion.

https://easternmassweather.blogspot.com/2024/11/using-past-forecasting-difficulty-to.html

Keep working at eliminating biases, which is mutually exclusive with being human (thanks for proving my point) because I have news for you...you haven't eliminated them yet.

The rest of us mere mortals will focus on reducing our biaes.

BTW, as  LICSW, I am well schooled in teh defense mechanism of projection, which inherently entails an element of struggle for the "projector" to accept and become conscious of the unwanted thoughts and/or feelings that they are trying to project....I just admitted I have a bias that I am working to mitigate, dude, so stick to weather.

If you didn’t continually misstate my conclusions based on your incorrect perceptions of them, then we wouldn’t have to keep going back and forth and diverging from the main discussion.

Maybe this format just is too incomplete to enable you to get the full gist or meaning of the ideas that I am trying to convey. We could probably come to a much better understanding if we ever had a meeting in public like at a conference if something. If you ever met me in person, then you would probably come away from the meeting with a completely different view as my in person persona can often be more stand up comedian like. As these forums can come off as overly dry. 

I get that you have a pretty good sense of humor and so do I. But it’s not always easy to convey that in these posts. These back and forth interactions I take in stride. Almost like when players are off the field the relationship is less intense what is seen on the field. But unfortunately, these forums miss the the off field antics.

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

43 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That may very well be true, and this is part of the reason why I think its important to wait until we get into the 2030s before assuming some of these larger scale changes. That is all I am saying....I not at all a CC denier, believe me.

Very reasonable take, John.

You know ... not that my opinion needs to matter more than the next guy's.  In striving to be 'reasonable', objectivity should be one's governing goal.  If they are ... others will be more likely to consider ... etc...    Aaaand then we let MAGA choose what's objective.  LOL

no Seriously, I maintain that CC is true. 

I also maintain that the science of CC et al is not entirely certain as to how it will manifest.  I will say ... there is a growing compendium of published papers that describe changes in the global circulation;  faster jets is one of them.  I've posted links in American WX here and there, but no replies or forwarding conversation, lend much of any confidence that anyone would recall my having done so...  heh. 

There's a lot of advancing mathematics that has demonstrated better predictive skill, but there's still quite obviously ( and I know you may not like this word but bear with the semantics ) "alarming" gaps. 

Case in point, 2023:    not a single human being ( that I am aware...), nor any technology therefrom, predicted that en entire fucking planet ( a whole planet ) would up and raise a degree C, ocean to air, everywhere, simultaneously.  It was strangeness at a tedious scale that I haven't heard anyone, not even the University apparatus, mention. There's plenty of, 'still a mystery as to how,' type studies, but none that I've seen the specifically addresses the question: why would the 40N and above spanning Atlantic Basin SSTs, rise at the same rate and amount as the Indian Ocean, while both rose at a similar amount and speed as the ENSO band ( 4, 3.4, 3, 1+2)... as did the south Pacific...?  It's like some kind of conductor zapped the whole world.   These fields, moving in unison, is the alarming aspect.  And the atmosphere went right along with it...

That occurrence proves that "the science of CC et al is not entirely certain as to how it will manifest"

That uncertainty, moreover, allows for a larger envelope of plausible emergence yet to be presented given time.  Last winter was - I think - an under-the-radar extraordinary event.  It just didn't hurt anything.   I've been alive for many decades now ...I've never seen 4" lousy inches of snow survive 3.5 months of time in any winter, including the big dawgs of lore.  The persistent temperature suppression, albeit not extraordinarily cold, that went along with that ... is something I've never heard of.  

I suspect CC is always manifesting in these idiosyncratic ways that are too nuanced to most people's everyday, including the nerds, to really consider.  We are an observation enslaved interpreter species of the universe and nature - we water cooler and shelve all speculation and predictions, until they are squeezing our balls.    

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, bluewave said:

If you didn’t continually misstate my conclusions based on your incorrect perceptions of them, then we wouldn’t have to keep going back and forth and diverging from the main discussion.

Maybe this format just is too incomplete to enable you to get the full gist or meaning of the ideas that I am trying to convey. We could probably come to a much better understanding if we ever had a meeting in public like at a conference if something. If you ever met me in person, then you would probably come away from the meeting with a completely different view as my in person persona can often be more stand up comedian like. As these forums can come off as overly dry. 

I get that you have a pretty good sense of humor and so do I. But it’s not always easy to convey that in these posts. These back and forth interactions I take in stride. Almost like when players are off the field the relationship is less intense what is seen on the field. But unfortunately, these forums miss the the off field antics.

 

 

I implied that you no longer feel the traditional concept of the multidecadal PDO cycling is still valid....what did I misstate?? I replied that its soon to draw that conclusion, and posted a graph that reveals similar cycling in the past as evidence.

I agree regarding the second bolded point, but I don't think thats because I am misunderstanding anything....its because thise mode of communication is very impersonal and it is in fact difficult to detect tonality. You are probably right that I wouldn't perceieve you as arrogant in that case.

[40/70 Benchmark]

11 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

You know ... not that my opinion needs to matter more than the next guy's.  In striving to be 'reasonable', objectivity should be one's governing goal.  If they are ... others will be more likely to consider ... etc...    Aaaand then we let MAGA choose what's objective.  LOL

no Seriously, I maintain that CC is true. 

I also maintain that the science of CC et al is not entirely certain as to how it will manifest.  I will say ... there is a growing compendium of published papers that describe changes in the global circulation;  faster jets is one of them.  I've posted links in American WX here and there, but no replies or forwarding conversation, lend much of any confidence that anyone would recall my having done so...  heh. 

There's a lot of advancing mathematics that has demonstrated better predictive skill, but there's still quite obviously ( and I know you may not like this word but bear with the semantics ) "alarming" gaps. 

Case in point, 2023:    not a single human being ( that I am aware...), nor any technology therefrom, predicted that en entire fucking planet ( a whole planet ) would up and raise a degree C, ocean to air, everywhere, simultaneously.  It was strange at a tedious scale that I haven't heard anyone one, not even the University apparatus, mention. There's plenty of "still a mystery as to how' type studies, but none that I've seen the specifically addresses the question.  Why would the 40N and above spanning Atlantic Basin SSTs, rise at the same rate and amount as the Indian Ocean, while both rose at a similar amount and speed as the ENSO band ( 4, 3.4, 3, 1+2)... as did the south Pacific...?  It's like some kind of conductor zapped the whole world.   These fields moving in unison is the alarming aspect.  And the atmosphere when right along with it...

That occurrence prove that "the science of CC et al is not entirely certain as to how it will manifest"

That uncertainty, moreover, allows for a larger envelope of plausible emergence yet to be presented given time.  Last winter was - I think - an under-the-radar extraordinary event.  It just didn't hurt anything.   I've been alive for many decades now ...I've never seen 4" lousy inches of snow survive 3.5 months of time in any winter, including the big dawgs of lore.  The persistent temperature suppression, albeit not extraordinarily cold, that went along with that ... is something I've never heard of.  

I suspect CC is always manifesting in these idiosyncratic ways that are too nuanced to most people's everyday, including the nerds, to really consider.  We are an observation enslaved interpreter species of the universe and nature - we water cooler and shelve all speculation and predictions, until they are squeezing our balls.    

Believe me, everyone in the SNE forum can recall with vivid clarity your position with respect to the enhanced medium limiting storm potential. It hasn't slid under the radar, I can assure you.

[40/70 Benchmark]

BTW, @bluewaveperhaps sometimes my posts are more intense than intended as a result of the heavily sarcastic tone...believe me, I'm not angry and do value your contributions. 

[Typhoon Tip]

38 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Believe me, everyone in the SNE forum can recall with vivid clarity your position with respect to the enhanced medium limiting storm potential. It hasn't slid under the radar, I can assure you.

 

do you remember at Funky Murphy's, we were talking about the "deamplification" error of the models?    How there seems to be an everyday requirement of whatever eye-candy there is in the extended, to salt the sucker at least some amount. 

I suspect that is related to the models having to "speed up" the flow, moving all events from circa D12s to D8s ... to D4s and so on.  Along the way, speeding up processes is but very subtle along 6 hourly intervals in the models, but is too little perhaps to notice. But aggregated over time, requires some 20% ( for the sake of discussion) of mechanical organization lost after a week of doing that..   

It's like an exchange, where the models have to take energy from the small scales, to then supply the large scale with the faster basal flow velocities.  

Sounds like human-based economics interestingly enough...  haha

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

do you remember at Funky Murphy's, we were talking about the "deamplification" error of the models?    How there seems to be an everyday requirement to anticipated whatever eye-candy there is in the extended, salt the sucker at least some amount. 

I suspect that is related to the models having to "speed up" the flow, moving all events from you know  circa D12s to D8s ... to D4s and so on.  Along the speeding up process, very subtle from 6 hourly intervals in the models, aggregates to some 20% ( for the sake of discussion) of mechanics organization lost to an exchange where the models have to take energy from the small scales, to then supply the large scale with the faster basal flow velocities.  

Sounds like human-based economics interestingly enough...  haha

Yes, it worked out very well this season.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

That may very well be true, and this is part of the reason why I think its important to wait until we get into the 2030s before assuming some of these larger scale changes. That is all I am saying....I not at all a CC denier, believe me.

Very reasonable take, John.

The reason why some of the more extreme climate forecasts from the 70s and 80s did not verify is because we have natural heat sinks in place (like the oceans) that store that extra heat energy.  I liken it to a busted severe weather forecast that failed because the cap did not break.  However, those natural systems can only hold for so long and at some point the cap will break and then we'll see an accelerated greenhouse effect.  Let's just hope it does not do that for a few decades yet.

 

 

[GaWx]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

I disagree with your assessment about a cold phase since 1998. The PDO has been shorter cycling than it was prior to the 1990s. So we have been getting alternating +PDO and -PDO cycles since then.

This is why the 2010s into the 2020s have experienced such a rapid shift between the record +PDO in 2015 to record -PDO in the early 2020s. Those long 30 year cycles have become a thing of the past.

Chris,

 I see what you’re saying regarding the rapid changes but:

1) Why are you calling it a record +PDO in 2015? It was solidly positive and much higher than surrounding years, but it was nowhere near a record:

-2015 PDO: +0.9

But:

-1997 +1.3

-1993 +1.0

-1986 +1.0

-1987 +1.1

-1983 +1.2

-1941 +2.3

-1940 +1.8

-1936 +1.9

-1931 +1.0

-1926 +1.8

-1905 +1.4

-1904 +1.2

-1902 +1.2

**Edit: almost all of these were during and/or immediately adjacent to El Niño

2) The period 3/2014-7/2016 was no doubt a solid +PDO period with it averaging +1.0 surrounded by solid negative years. However, that was during a predominant El Niño period including a record strong Nino. To me this looks similar to 6/1957-1/1959, which also averaged +1.0 PDO, was surrounded by solid negative years, and was during a predominant El Niño period.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat

@40/70 Benchmark

[40/70 Benchmark]

26 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Chris,

 I see what you’re saying regarding the rapid changes but:

1) Why are you calling it a record +PDO in 2015? It was solidly positive and much higher than surrounding years, but it was nowhere near a record:

-2015 PDO: +0.9

But:

-1997 +1.3

-1993 +1.0

-1986 +1.0

-1987 +1.1

-1983 +1.2

-1941 +2.3

-1940 +1.8

-1936 +1.9

-1931 +1.0

-1926 +1.8

-1905 +1.4

-1904 +1.2

-1902 +1.2

2) The period 3/2014-7/2016 was no doubt a solid +PDO period with it averaging +1.0 surrounded by solid negative years. However, that was during a predominant El Niño period including a record strong Nino. To me this looks similar to 6/1957-1/1959, which also averaged +1.0 PDO, was surrounded by solid negative years, and was during a predominant El Niño period.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat

@40/70 Benchmark

Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said that there have aways been intracycle deviations from the longer term mean...that doesn't negate the longer term, multidecadal trend....it reverys back. You can see this in my annotation with the double maxima pattern in each decadal cycle. There is also a colder intelrude (late 1980's) immersed within the last warm phase, which was also triggered by ENSO.

Just to be clear...I am not denying or doubting CC...its very real. I just don't view this PDO cycling as a manifestation of it, nor do I feel that CC has impacted it....yet. I am, however, open to that conclusion if we do not see predominately +PDO during the 2030's, save for perhaps a La Nina induced stretch of -PDO interspered. I do feel that CC is impacting the phases themselves in terms of the associated SST patterns, but that is a different discussion.

[PhiEaglesfan712]

People are misusing the word cycle. It's meant to describe a short-term pattern. Like the 2014-16 +PDO period is a cycle.

The word to describe a long term pattern is secular. Like the 1976-1998 +PDO pattern is a secular pattern.

So, 2014-16 was a +PDO cycle in the secular -PDO pattern that started in 1998.

Just like in the stock market, 2003-07 was a bull market cycle in the secular 2000s bear market. Or the 1987 stock market crash was a bear market cycle in the 1983-1999 secular bull market.

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 minutes ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

People are misusing the word cycle. It's meant to describe a short-term pattern. Like the 2014-16 +PDO period is a cycle.

The word to describe a long term pattern is secular. Like the 1976-1998 +PDO pattern is a secular pattern.

So, 2014-16 was a +PDO cycle in the secular -PDO pattern that started in 1998.

Just like in the stock market, 2003-07 was a bull market cycle in the secular 2000s bear market. Or the 1987 stock market crash was a bear market cycle in the 1983-1999 secular bull market.

The term "multidecadal cycle" is pretty common place in meteorolgical vernacular, but the term "secular" is not.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I think prefacing cycle with the term "multidecadal" clears up any confusion.

I don't see any length of time specification here....

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

 

 

 

 

 

cy·cle

/ˈsīkəl/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a series of events that are regularly repeated in the same order.