GaWx

It looks like the most recent OHC was readjusted up to ~+1.35, which is about as warm as at any point on this graph and this appears to suggest more warming ahead. On average, Nov is the warmest OHC month though Dec was 0.45-0.50 warmer than Nov in both 1986 and 1991:

It still looks great through early Jan with the EPS mean having the SPV become weaker than the climo avg starting Dec 2nd and it being well below climo Dec 5th through Jan 9th. Keep in mind that ~a week ago, the EPS mean wasn’t going below climo til Dec 25th! This run has a whopping 25% of its members with a major SSW between mid Dec and early Jan, which is the highest of any run yet and is well above the climo chance for that period:

WCS PDO resumes large daily rises with latest -0.72 vs -0.86 prior day vs ~-1.28 7 days ago (Edit for 11/25 WCS: PDO -0.77, Nino 3.4 +1.10)

CFS prog vs Normal 10 mb N Pole temp: (C)/anomaly Dec -58 vs -70/ +12 Jan -51 vs -60/+9 Feb -49 vs -55/+6 So, latest CFS has DJF N Pole 10 mb temp anomaly at +9 C implying a weak SPV for the winter.

Per the following 0Z 11/24 GEFS 10 mb map for 12/19, it implies a significantly weaker SPV vs what was implied on the 0Z 11/18 prog (similar to 11/24 vs 11/18 Euro): 11/24 run for 12/19: note how much warmer is W Siberia to NW Can, further N/stronger S AK high, and sig weaker SPV on this vs 11/18 run map below: these strong trends are hints of an increasing shot at a SSW ~12/20: 11/18 run for 12/19:

Still looks great!

Check out the image of precip anomalies for 1979-2012 for Nov-Mar below: note that the precip bulge center was at 170E on the JFM map whereas it is ~180 on the newer map. The 170E centered map is near phase 6, a typically warm phase. It moves E from there but that still would in theory mean a good bit of 6. On the newer map though it is centered at 180, which is between 6 and 7, and this in theory should mean less of the warm phase 6. I’d love to see the bulge move even further E and thus allow in theory a higher freq of phases 8 and 1:

I’m sure @griteatercan explain the precip anomaly bulge way better than me. After all, I saw it for the first time when he posted that JFM Euro precip anomaly map. It appears to possibly be associated with where upper level forcing/OLR is greatest/where MJO is most favored. Maybe it is largely there due to very warm water being most widespread there? Warmer SSTs often lead to more convection. I know that the W portion of 3.4/E part of 4 have warmed a good bit recently due to the strong WWB.

Comparing 12/8-1/9 with the Nov 1st prog for JFM, the Dateline bulge has lived on but also the center of it has moved E JFM: bulge max 170W to 150E with mean 170E: Dec 8-Jan 9: centered further E at ~180; E GOM/SE US +anoms stronger

We do have at least a month or so to get the final answer. But imho if you were being perfectly honest, you’d admit that todays 0.08 drops were not what you wanted to see/not helpful to chances of ever seeing a+2.4+ daily, even if they reduced the chance just modestly. To improve your quality as a poster, I’d hope to see more objectivity from you as opposed to you just sounding one sided all the time. It is like you never acknowledge that things can be going against your predictions. You’ve been great for this thread and the thread wouldn’t be the same without you. I never make fun of you. But I feel you’d be a better contributor if you’d at least better acknowledge when things go the other way.

Here it is, cyclonicwx also fell 0.08 and is now back down to 2.12, very close to WCS’ 2.11:

Big drop in OISST 3.4 on WCS from +2.19 yesterday to +2.11 today: last few days 2.12 to 2.15 to 2.19 to 2.11. With this drop and assuming cyclonicwx also shows a significant drop today, that would mean at least a short term top of ~+2.20 has occurred. In order for there to ever be a +2.00 ONI peak, there will almost certainly need to be a higher daily peak later as just the math and history, combined, says that +2.20 daily peak on OISST is very likely not going to be enough to support a 3 month +2.00+ on ERSST. We likely now have had enough warmth to get a +1.80 ONI peak but probably not enough yet to get even a +1.90 ONI per the math. Based on the past, we probably need a daily peak near +2.40 for @snowman19to get an unrounded +2.00 trimonthly and thus declare victory. There’s still another month or so for that possibility, but a possibility is all that is right now and this sudden reversal, itself, was not helpful for that chance obviously: Edit: PS PDO ~same as yesterday’s update and is at -0.84. Let’s see what cyclonicwx OISST has today for 3.4! Will it also have a big drop??

NOAA OHC to 300m (1991-2020 climo, 5N to 5S) readjusted warmer and warming further: Brand new: From just yesterday: note the adjustment up since then

If that is actually all snowfall and not sleet or ZR, the 1.5-2” down here at SAV on that run would be the 2nd heaviest early Dec snow on record with only Dec 6th of 1740’s 4-5” exceeding it.

Today’s Euro Weeklies mean is similar with the weak Dec SPV of yesterday’s run. The EPS mean 60N wind for Dec 7-31 as a whole is at only ~2/3 of the longterm climo mean for Dec. 7-31: li

Cyclonicwx’s Nino temps: 11/24 update 1+2: +2.05 3: +2.40 3.4: +2.20 (vs +2.16 yesterday and WCS’ +2.19) 4: +1.48

The latest WCS Nino 3.4 OISST rose from +2.12 two days ago to +2.15 yesterday to +2.19 today (as of 11/22). So, although it appeared warming was slowing some yesterday, it is still steadily warming. So, look for a further warming on today’s cyclonicwx graph, too. So, as we approach +2.20 on OISST, one might wonder if that, alone, makes an unrounded +2.00+ ONI peak likely. My opinion is that that, alone, doesn’t. On the dailies, a +2.40ish daily peak is probably going to be needed based loosely on the past. Even on the weeklies, a +2.3 is probably going to be needed based on the last 5 Nino’s. We do have a good shot at a +2.10 week in the next release. So, to get the +2.00 peak ONI, the dailies likely need to warm another 0.20 or so. With today’s warming, we’re likely going to have a +1.80 or so ONI peak at the minimum. The WCS daily PDO major rise of the last two days took a break with it at -0.86 vs -0.84 yesterday.

NOAA OHC time series update (5N to 5S)(1991-2020 base):

Todays Euro Weeklies SPV strength update was to be a big test because of yesterday’s huge move weaker. The result is that todays not only upheld yesterday’s update, it went further throughout Dec! As of just three runs ago, the Weeklies had a strong SPV for Dec as a whole. Now it has just about the exact opposite! The EPS mean drops below climo on Dec 4th. This compares to 12/25 just three runs ago! And not that a major SSW is required for a weak SPV to result in a -AO/-NAO to become dominant, but today’s update based on the individual members implies a 20% chance of a major SSW just through the first week of January, which is about the highest yet for any run. Keep in mind that the vast majority of major SSWs occur mid Jan or later and that well under 20% of winters through Jan 7th have had a major SSW: Today’s Euro run: weak SPV dominates Dec: Euro from just 3 days ago: strong SPV dominates Dec:

The latest for Nino 3.4 is +2.16 per cyclonicwx and +2.15 per WCS. The warming is slowing for now. We’re still a good ways from a super (one trimonth of +2.00+ is my definition). A highest daily max of ~+2.40+ would probably be needed to allow for a super, which may never be reached obviously:

Why doesn’t Jan take it all the way and require five trimonthlies for strength, too? If he’s/she’s going to be 100% consistent, that’s what Jan would need to do. Why stop at just three? Is Jan requiring only three to make sure 1982-3 is classified as super? It only had three trimonthlies at +2.00+ unrounded: SON 1982 28.50 1.97 OND 1982 28.70 2.18 NDJ 1982 28.76 2.23 DJF 1983 28.79 2.18 JFM 1983 28.75 1.92 I think Jan’s too strict. I still count 1972-3 as super as the majority of posts explicitly addressing it here have done to the best of my memory despite it having had only two trimonthlies and only two months of +2.00+. Its trimonthly peak was +2.12. Different strokes for different folks though consistency is of utmost importance to me. For those who go by NOAA, they’ve already called the current event “strong” after just one trimonth of +1.50+. Regardless, I feel that for the best measure of relative effects vs prior events, RONI is a better measure and it is only in low end moderate so far with +1.05 for ASO. It will rise but it is questionable whether or not it will reach strong (+1.50+ unrounded RONI) per this: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/RONI.ascii.txt There are so many different ways to look at this that it could drive us crazy! But for assessing @snowman19’s prediction, I’ll require only ONE UNROUNDED trimonthly of ERSST of +2.00+. To require more would not be fair imho. Hardly anyone else here other than @George001has expected even just one trimonthly of +2.00+. Even my own latest prediction is for a trimonthly peak of only +1.7 to +1.9 (meaning the highest and not requiring more than one within that).

I'll call this one super if the UNROUNDED ERSST trimonthly peak is +2.00+. No hidden agenda. So, if it is only +1.99, I'll call it just strong, even though the ONI table would show it as +2.0. If it comes in at +2.01, I'll consider it super. I've not seen a requirement for +2.1C. I've always seen +2.0 as the key threshold just like +1.50 for strong (NOAA just called the current Nino strong per @bluewave) and +1.00 for moderate. But to each their own. The current Nino was for ERSST unrounded at +1.54 for ASO (the only trimonth at +1.50+) per the following link of unrounded trimonthlies and it has already been classified as strong by NOAA: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt

Meanwhile, the WCS daily PDO just rose by a large amount for the 2nd straight day. It has risen a whopping 0.35 in just 48 hours (0.17 yesterday and 0.18 two days ago):

On the linked table, the minimum to officially be counted by NOAA as El Niño (red) or La Niña (blue) is, indeed, 5 consecutive trimonths of 0.5+/-0.5- (we all agree on this): https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php For El Niño strength above weak, I’ve always gone by the peak strength of the trimonthlies without requiring multiples. Example: 1972. If that required 5 months of +2+ ERSST, it would be only strong rather than super because only Nov and Dec were +2+ per this table: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt But I’ve always seen it classified as super here and elsewhere.

At least there appears to be a decent -AO. Also, the ante is upped, especially as we head into Jan, by the potential much weaker SPV that’s showing on this run.