OSUmetstud

shut up

DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5oC for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years. For historical purposes, periods of below and above normal SSTs are colored in blue and red when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive overlapping seasons. The ONI is one measure of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and other indices can confirm whether features consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon accompanied these periods. The latest tri-monthly is 0.7. https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php

They use anomalies against a moving average, so they do take into account warming oceans. I'm not disagreeing with CPC per say, it's just defined by past anomalies so we can't know we're in an El Nino until we've already been in one for some time. Nino region 3.4 has hovering near +1c anomaly for like 3 months running.

I figured that was driving the awful look that the EPS has in the 11-15 day. GEFS looks a lot better.

That solutions is really close to the 12z GFS. It's basically all southern stream. I'd guess temps are really marginal in SNE given such a similar H5 look.

I could see that working out for northern areas.

in reference to the MJO stuff. Eric Webb says the GFS can outdual the ECMWF re: MJO when there is a high amplitude wave that originates in the maritime continent. It doesnt make sense that such a high ampltiude wave would suddenly die like the ECWMF shows, anyway.

John, by this standard you can barely ever say you're in an El Nino. We have to wait for 5 consecutive trimonthlies of 0.5 or higher anomalies in 3.4 for it to be declared. It's dictated by past anomalies which in some respect is kinda silly. By most objective measures the SST and the atmospheric have been in El Nino type state for awhile now.

Its all good

Yeah it is pretty significant. I thought the warm bias on the op was only in the boundary layer.

The GFS wasn't good to begin with lol

A friend of mine who is a NOAA contractor was specifically working on that op bias over the past year or two.

I mean I guess it's good we don't have to worry about those dry adiabatic boundary layers with heavy precip anymore.

The whole 1000-500 layer runs cold. So it's not just a surface thing.

Second image should be p1000 but same difference.

Its in the emc model verification. It runs the cold at the surface compared to the op GFS and the other models.

I believe Scott uses it as tp.

I mean im pretty sure it averaged positive during the first two weeks. There's a significant rise there into late week 1/early week 2 of the month. Trying to pin down the intraseasonal stuff is pretty difficult anyway. You could even argue that the confluence from the positive NAO was a contributor in the futility in the seemingly good pattern.

The cold in early December wasn't via NAO blocking. The month averaged positive.

A bit of thunder in West Seneca

metfan violently disagrees

GGEM is better in phasing in ocean lows, while gfs will be out to sea. RGEM is a better model than both gfs and nam inside 36 hours imo.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/CLIVAR/clivar_wh.shtml

Not really, but the GEFS guidance weirdly brings it strongly into 5/6 whereas the ecmwf and other agencies keep it lower amplitude and faster moving into the more favorable phases.

We were chatting about pivotalwx yesterday. I've noticed on the rdps and gdps soundings, which are cool obviously, they don't have omega beyond a few mandatory levels. I've noticed this before with rdps grib 2 data set, it only has 850/700/500/250 vertical velocity available.