pcbjr
Member
Very ...
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
whatalife
Moderator
I would NEVER stir the pot Charlie. It's not in my nature. 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pcbjr
Member
I do and that's why I have a big black eye sometimes ...I would NEVER stir the pot
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But then, so does the other one ...
whatalife
Moderator
I do and that's why I have a big black eye sometimes ...
But then, so does the other one ...
You guys and gals just wait. I'm going to post a wishcast snowstorm video like Don did last winter. I promise it will be EPIC!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hahah Michael tweeted this out.
Wow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pcbjr
Member
With that, see ya in November ...Hahah Michael tweeted this out.
Wow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
whatalife
Moderator
Hahah Michael tweeted this out.
Wow
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HAHA! I guess that would work
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AMJ of 2017 just came in at +0.5:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
How significant is that with regard to upcoming El Niño chances?
Analog groups:
1. I required that there not be a Niño
the prior winter, that there be a significant warming from the prior DJF (0.5+) to AMJ to count, and required AMJ to be at least neutral positive (+0.1+). Then, if AMJ were warmer than +0.5, I subtracted out the difference at the subsequent peak to see if it would still have qualified as El Niño. Example: I counted 1957 AMJ as an analog because it had warmed significantly (1.0 C) from the prior DJF and the prior fall/winter was not during El Niño. That AMJ was at +0.7, which is 0.2 warmer than AMJ of 2017. So, I subtracted 0.2 from the 1957-8 peak, which easily still would have been El Niño. The 10 analogs were these:
1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1982, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2009
Only 1993 failed to reach El Niño. So, only 10% failed.
2. DJF negative and the following AMJ positive. Here are those years: 1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1997, 2002, and 2009. All 8 went to El Niño and 7 of the 8 went to at least a moderate Niño. All 8 warmed by at least 0.7 from that AMJ to the Niño peak.
3. Another set of analogs: all but two AMJs that were +0.2+ and that weren't coming off of a Niño went onto El Niño:
Yes: 1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1979, 1982, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2004, and 2009
No: Only 1990 and 1993.
So, 13 yes and only 2 no. And 1990 just missed El Niño with its +0.2 in AMJ. One could argue that it could have been El Niño if it were any warmer than +0.2 in AMJ as is the case for 2017. All but 1993 warmed at least 0.2 from AMJ to the peak.
Conclusion: El Niño this year is becoming an increasing possibility and a good possibility at that based on ENSO since 1950.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
How significant is that with regard to upcoming El Niño chances?
Analog groups:
1. I required that there not be a Niño
the prior winter, that there be a significant warming from the prior DJF (0.5+) to AMJ to count, and required AMJ to be at least neutral positive (+0.1+). Then, if AMJ were warmer than +0.5, I subtracted out the difference at the subsequent peak to see if it would still have qualified as El Niño. Example: I counted 1957 AMJ as an analog because it had warmed significantly (1.0 C) from the prior DJF and the prior fall/winter was not during El Niño. That AMJ was at +0.7, which is 0.2 warmer than AMJ of 2017. So, I subtracted 0.2 from the 1957-8 peak, which easily still would have been El Niño. The 10 analogs were these:
1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1982, 1993, 1997, 2002, 2009
Only 1993 failed to reach El Niño. So, only 10% failed.
2. DJF negative and the following AMJ positive. Here are those years: 1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1997, 2002, and 2009. All 8 went to El Niño and 7 of the 8 went to at least a moderate Niño. All 8 warmed by at least 0.7 from that AMJ to the Niño peak.
3. Another set of analogs: all but two AMJs that were +0.2+ and that weren't coming off of a Niño went onto El Niño:
Yes: 1951, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1972, 1979, 1982, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2004, and 2009
No: Only 1990 and 1993.
So, 13 yes and only 2 no. And 1990 just missed El Niño with its +0.2 in AMJ. One could argue that it could have been El Niño if it were any warmer than +0.2 in AMJ as is the case for 2017. All but 1993 warmed at least 0.2 from AMJ to the peak.
Conclusion: El Niño this year is becoming an increasing possibility and a good possibility at that based on ENSO since 1950.
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Completely agree w/ Dr. Ventrice here (whose AEI (Atmospheric ENSO Index) uses 90-120 day filtered VP 200 anomalies in the Equatorial Pacific, thus filtering out short-term noise unrelated to ENSO... I think it's pretty obvious the low frequency base state wants to be in a NINA rn... I say this because it's kinda funny how every time the MJO filtered VP 200 anomalies propagate into the Pacific, most CC EQ wave modes become discombobulated/disorganized and are of appreciably higher frequency, when the MJO filtered anomalies get over Africa and the Indian Ocean, the CCKWs become far more pronounced...
Beating a dead horse here, but yet again it's worth mentioning that most of the SLP power (spectrum density) wrt ENSO is of higher frequency vs SST and has a more pronounced seasonal cycle as compared with SSTs in the cold tongue region (at least in the leading mode) which is harder for geographically fixed indices like the SOI to track, thus making the SOI effectively a relatively piss-poor ENSO index for utilization of realtime ENSO monitoring....
Good luck trying to get a formidable SOI crash anytime soon with most of the anomalous upward motion in the tropics over the Maritime Continent and Indian Ocean (which will manifest primarily as a series of EQ RWs) leading to yet another major easterly trade wind burst...
pcbjr
Member
You just blew my winter ... LOL
whatalife
Moderator
Per models, there likely won't be a long lasting SOI crash similar to June's for at least 2 weeks due to high Tahiti SLP's.
In the meantime, I had earlier read about Dr. Ventrice's tweet at another BB that received mixed reaction as two posters there questioned the value of his AEI with regard to ENSO in the past. I have no opinion about it but will state that the key variable of 3.4 SST anoms is currently well within weak Niño territory. The latest map suggests it may be up to +0.8. If this persists for several more months, there would be an official Nino regardless of what the AEI, MEI (which was already well within Niño territory with 1.455 fwiw), and JMA SST show.
In the meantime, I had earlier read about Dr. Ventrice's tweet at another BB that received mixed reaction as two posters there questioned the value of his AEI with regard to ENSO in the past. I have no opinion about it but will state that the key variable of 3.4 SST anoms is currently well within weak Niño territory. The latest map suggests it may be up to +0.8. If this persists for several more months, there would be an official Nino regardless of what the AEI, MEI (which was already well within Niño territory with 1.455 fwiw), and JMA SST show.
The MJO kinda screwed the whole Nino thing with some of the guidance a few months ago with regards to the EPAC warm pool . Seems things are cooler now vs what was projected.
I wouldn't be shocked if we end up closer to neutral or even a weak weak weak Nina especially if we get some easterly anomalies cranking. But lord knows I want a Nino . Is a west based Nino too much to ask for ??? I still think it's too early to have a lean either way . But , arguments can be made for anything from neutral to weak Nino to a weak Nina
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wouldn't be shocked if we end up closer to neutral or even a weak weak weak Nina especially if we get some easterly anomalies cranking. But lord knows I want a Nino . Is a west based Nino too much to ask for ??? I still think it's too early to have a lean either way . But , arguments can be made for anything from neutral to weak Nino to a weak Nina
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
whatalife
Moderator
Yes, I would agree with you. I'm hedging my bets on a more neutral state based off what we are seeing with things having cooled down in the PAC. Only time will time what really will happen in those waters
.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Yes, I would agree with you. I'm hedging my bets on a more neutral state based off what we are seeing with things having cooled down in the PAC. Only time will time what really will happen in those waters
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I'd personally lean towards warm biased neutral atm, with anything ranging from a weak El Nino to dead on neutral being the legitimate range wrt ENSO this winter...
How so? Explain... Dr. Ventrice's index that measures the upper level circulation wrt ENSO is certainly far more powerful than the SOI, which again is arguably the worst ENSO index to date because it's geographically fixed, is susceptible to local noise due to lack of spatial averaging, and the variable it's measuring (SLP) is also particularly noisy especially in comparison to SST. The SOI doesn't become terribly useful whatsoever without pentad average, but at that point it nearly defeats the purpose of being a real-time index and becomes an index that's useful for inter comparison and training of other indices and ENSO reanalysis projects. NINO 3.4 region SSTAs are at most +0.6C atm, I see little-no evidence to support an anomaly to that magnitude, daily CDAS values are closer to ~ +0.6C.
This ENSO event doesn't meet the JMA criteria of +0.5C for 6 successive pentads, I've already discussed some of the issues w/ the original MEI index (among them are the positively skewed values after 1976, the base period and training period for their EOFs is very outdated (1950-1993) and fails to include 3 of the 5 strongest ENSO events since 1950 (1997-98, 2010-11, and 2015-16)), it's far from being within weak NINO territory, intensity and persistence define an ENSO event, it needs to not only have magnitude but actually last long enough to project effectively onto the seasonal time scale, otherwise it's merely high frequency noise...
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
Again there's a major disconnect between the SOI and the easterly trades over the equatorial Pacific. Aside from a few anomalous WWBs in the far eastern Pacific, stronger than normal easterly trades have dominated the central Pacific since may. Most of the WWBs have been well outside the warm pool region, need WWBs in the central Pacific to seriously begin to warm the water over the east-central Pacific, getting WWBs near South America is usually less effective at generating the necessary ocean-atmosphere coupling to sustain an El Nino, the thermocline here is appreciably more shallow and unstable than in the central Pacific plus the waters (even when they're much warmer than average) are still too cold to readily generate convection and initiate non-linear processes (such as low level wind stresses) that augment the atmospheric response to the underlying ocean.
pcbjr
Member
whatalife
Moderator
1. I'm just telling you what I read earlier today at another forum with regard to the AEI. One poster presented it as an alternative way of looking at ENSO and two others questioned its value. I don't yet know enough about it to have an opinion unlike the SOI.
2. However, regarding the SOI, there is solid data going back well over 100 years. I've extensively studied the relationship between SOI and seasonal ENSO and have found the correlation to be pretty significant, especially for multimonth periods. Also, it is easy to analyze objectively due to not being complex and there being so much readily available data. Yes, sometimes it is off pretty badly/misleading but not enough to keep it from being useful imo. But what index isn't sometimes misleading other than the Niño 3.4, itself, since that's what is used to designate El Niño?
3. Compared to the weeklies, which have recently been at +0.7 C, Levi's 3.4 levels have recently been 0.1-0.2 C cooler. Also, Levi's are at their warmest of the last several months. To add to that, the TAO maps are currently the warmest they've been anytime recently and I estimate the latest 5 day average to be close to +0.8C with some parts of the southern 3.4 already nearing +1.5 C. So, there actually is evidence out there to suggest it may now be up to +0.8 C. Of course, it needs persistence of +0.5+ C to qualify as a Niño (5 trimonthlies in a row for ONI). Therefore, we won't know til much later but we may very well already be into El Niño since we just had the first trimonthly of +0.5.
4. I'm not a fan of the MEI, myself. I mainly concentrate on 3.4 SST anomalies, themselves, and obviously love to follow the SOI to give me a rough idea of where we may be headed. I also sometimes follow the OLR index as that, too, has had some predictive value. Furthermore, I sometimes look at the OHC, which recently had been warming back up. Admittedly, I'd like to see this a bit warmer to allow me to have more confidence that El Niño will actually occur this year.
Last edited:
Webberweather53
Meteorologist
1. Well that doesn't really tell me anything, if you could quote what the other individual said that'd be nice...
2. You're missing my point... The relationships while significant are less so than every other ENSO index to date, and yes occasionally every other ENSO index may be misleading at times, and there's solid data for other indices going back 150 years, but the SOI is usually more misleading more often than any other (see Wolter and Timlin (2011)) and I strongly caution against its utilization for real-time monitoring. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about given some of my extensive research w/ a host of ENSO indices and creation of the ENS ONI, NCEP-NCAR MEI, ENS-SOI, etc...
3. The TAO buoys have a warm bias of about 0.1-0.2C in comparison to all other SST data available and the data is heavily interpolated, adjustments are needed to make the data useful and comparable to other data platforms, Levi's CDAS1 data is fairly reliable as is the OISSTv2 data. I know this first hand in my creation of my ENS ONI (which uses NINO 3.4 SSTAs) wherein I removed TAO and ARGO data because both sources had an extreme warm bias particularly during ENSO neutral and La Nina regimes...
4. I'm actually a big fan of the MEI. A) The MEI integrates multiple variables across multiple platforms (6), I use 7 in MEI NCEP-NCAR MEI to derive a relatively stable and coherent ENSO index that's available in real-time and in doing so is able to capture more variability than the SOI or NINO 3.4, particularly non-linear variance that variables such as SLP and SST are less sensitive to. B) Being geographically fixed, the SOI and NINO 3.4 indices fail to account for ENSO's seasonal cycle, the loading structures change in accordance w/ the time of the year and even more so wrt SLP, the MEI which uses EOF analysis is able to capture alterations in the structure of the SST and SLP fields with respect to each season and is thus again capturing more variability that's often lost in other indices. C) Geographically stationary indices like the SOI and NINO 3.4 are actually derived from the same EOFs that are used to calculate the MEI, the NINO 3.4 index is among the most popular of the past few decades and was developed by Anthony Barnston in 1997 from EOF analysis of tropical Pacific SSTs, while if EOF analysis was performed for SLP, the SOI generally occurs in the highest loadings D) Geographically fixed indices fail to capture variance outside their very restrictive domains, while in this case EOF analysis in a nutshell compares the structure of the entire field over a large area to the stereotypical ENSO structure for that time of the year... I've already created a few MEI indices w/ ERA-20CM, NCEP-NCAR that make several adjustments to the original MEI, and am still working on an ensemble-based index that will use even more adjustments and stringent quality control to make an extremely powerful MEI index that's nearly available in real-time and goes back as far as possible in the observational record.