GaWx

15 hours ago, Weather Will said:

WB latest CFSV2 30 day multi run precip and temps maps for Dec-March.

 Will, thanks for posting.
 Unfortunately, WB CFS temp. maps have major algo flaws and thus I rarely post them. Example: they usually have a major cold spot over S Lake Michigan and a major warm spot over N L. Mich & vicinity just 250 miles to the N! Also, they tend to have too much contrast between well inland areas of the E 1/2 of the US (too cold) and the much warmer near E coast (often too warm).
 

 Related to this, WB shows at/near record cold Feb/Mar of -5 to -7C (and even vs the colder 1981-2010 climo!) in those areas with the 3rd-6th shades of green based on the means of 30 days of runs. The CFSv2 site shows nothing of the sort:

examples for Feb:

1) Columbus, GA, in Feb is ~-3.5C vs 1991-2020 for the avg of the 3 maps below from the CFSv2 site, itself, whereas WB has them ~-5C vs the colder 1981-2010 or ~2C/3.6F too cold (1991-2020 is 0.5C warmer than 1981-2010).

2) At the same time, the NC/VA border on E coast in Feb is ~-1.5C vs 1991-2020 on CFSv2 compared to NN on WB vs the colder 1981-2010 meaning WB is ~1C too warm

8/6-15:

8/16-25:

8/26-9/4:

2 hours ago, LakePaste25 said:

I’m sorry but this is just incorrect to say it’s not the warmest. You should specify that it’s not the highest relative Nino 3.4 index. To flat out say “it’s not the warmest” is incorrect. 

If my local airport reaches 101, that would be the warmest temperature on record, since the all-time record is 100. If i come up with some “relative temperature” it doesn’t change that fact. 

The fact still stands that Nino 3.4 is at its all time highest, and has been consistently.

 

1. My post started with “Consistent with OISST, the August relative ERSST anomaly for Nino 3.4 just came out”.

 Thus it should be understood by anyone following along that the entire post is talking about “relative” anomalies.

2. My entire post is addressing anomalies, not absolutes. You’re using an absolute in your example.

3. Relative anomalies are now official for NOAA and BoM at the least. 

4. The outdated traditional way of determining anomalies is currently inflated ~0.5C due to GW.

4. August of 2026 was very warm, but it wasn’t the warmest relative 3.4 anomaly on record as Aug of 1997 was 0.18 warmer.

5. The main point of my post is that the models had way too rapid warming in 3.4 from July to August. The relative anomaly in 3.4 warmed only 0.34C per ERSST, which prevented a record high relative 3.4 anomaly for Aug. like had been progged.

Nino 1+2 (keep in mind that this is non-relative) had a strong rise yesterday. Get ready for a tweet from Adam, Abraham, and/or others addressing this saying record breaking yada yada yada. Keep in mind though that records from 1982-3 and 1997-8 are based on weeklies, not dailies. Also, highest relative WEEKLY in 1983 was +4.6 and in 1997 was +4.1. Let’s see where the current calendar week relative 1+2 on Monday. It won’t be anywhere near +4.6 although it may get close to +4.0.

Consistent with OISST, the August relative ERSST anomaly for Nino 3.4 just came out and it also shows a rather mundane warming in August vs July compared to the near record breaking rapid warming of ~1C that several models had been showing. The Nino 3.4 anomaly warmed by only 0.34:

2026   6   1.07
2026   7   1.33
2026   8   1.67

 It had been earlier progged to be >+2 for August. For example, check out this June 13-22 mean CFSv2 prog for August: +2.3, which was notably above what verified:

 How does August of ‘26 compare to other very warm Nino Augusts since 1950? It’s very warm but still wasn’t the warmest as 1997 was 0.18 warmer. Had it warmed to +2+ like had been progged, August would have easily been the warmest on record:

2026 +1.67

2015 +1.58

1997 +1.85

1987 +1.27

1982 +0.93

1972 +1.47

1965 +1.57

1957 +1.36

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/Rnino34.ascii.txt

 CFSv2 progs for relative Nino 3.4 trimonthly peak continue to cool significantly as the overall flatness of Nino 3.4 still persists (much longer than earlier progged on the models for 3.4):

Mean of runs Aug 4-13: OND +3.5 (when the progged peak was at a peak)

Mean of runs Aug 14-23: OND back down to +3.25

Mean of runs Aug 24-Sep 2: OND down even further to +3.1! It hasn’t been this low since the 10 day means of late June:

 The updated monthly Euro seasonal forecast as of Sept 1st is due to be released tomorrow.

There was lightning delay/heavy thunderstorm at GT for their game vs Prime Time’s CO Buffaloes. But the storm is already moving out rapidly to the W.

 Go Jackets!

4 hours ago, forkyfork said:

 

Thanks to forky, Adam @snowman19 is back! 

Oops, I forgot to break down by months. I think Dec/Feb will have the best chance to have the warmest/coldest anomalies among DJF, which is consistent with strong Nino analogs and model consensus for the E US. In the SE when we’ve had 1-2 big winter storms, they’ve tended to be mainly between the 2nd half of Jan and March. A major exception was the SE major winter storm of early Dec of 1896! So, of course, one never knows.

@Newman

33 minutes ago, Brewbeer said:

he's a blowhard not worth wasting time on

 I agree he’s a major blowhard and not a nice person, and he’s been dead wrong on several things (including claiming “Heat Dome” is a recent term used primarily by alarmists and first claiming this disaster was caused by an earthquake). However, I don’t think it’s a waste of time to post his stuff as especially Don and I have done the last few months. Because he’s been widely read/quoted in recent months, he often shows data to support his posts (whether misleading or not), and is smart/well spoken/pretty clear communicator, I think his posts should be addressed here whether in disagreement or not.
 

 A person like him who many here including myself have strongly disagreed with at least some of the time is the perfect person to bring into the forum to make for robust discussion and the debating of differing viewpoints. To avoid people with very different views tends to make forums like this and others closer to an echo chamber. The most interesting forums aren’t afraid to consider major differences of opinion and debate them. Also, it’s good to be open-minded as I feel I am on most topics. On this topic, I’m very open-minded.

2 hours ago, Newman said:

I've honestly not taken much of a long look into the upcoming 2026-27 winter prospects but did take a quick peek at it just now.

First of all, as of right now, it seems like the tropical Pacific and North Pacific *appear* to be out of sync and not quite coupled. Obviously we have a super Nino ongoing and expected to peak this fall. We're coming off a very negative SOI in July, I think the lowest since the 1980s. When taking a seasonal correlation of DJF 500mb heights to ASO SOI, you get a pretty canonical look. Positive correlations between SOI and 500mb heights in the SE US, meaning the negative SOI usually correlates to negative heights across the southern US, and then positive heights across the northern tier.

However, we may have a competing signal given there is (currently) a lag in response of the PDO to the developing Nino. August PDO is still negative, which is counterintuitive to what you'd expect during a strong Nino. In fact, I simply can't find any year at all that followed a typical ENSO progression to this year (strong to super Nino developing, peaking in the fall, then waning and eventually switching to Nina the following year) and also had a negative PDO. We still have time before winter for the North Pacific to respond, but for posterity, here is the correlation map between ASO PDO and DJF 500mb heights.

It's actually a very impressive negative correlation in the SE US, one that is more statistically significant than the SOI signal. The negative PDO usually correlates to positive heights in the SE US (big ridge in the eastern US), and that is opposite to the map above.

So that begs the question here... IF the PDO continues to lag into the winter and we have a Nina like North Pacific but Nino tropical Pacific, how will the winter turn out? I'm under the opinion that we will see a North Pacific "coupling" this fall with the tropics, but I'm cautious about it until I see it. We've seen this persistent negative PDO for so long, aided by the marine heat wave off Japan, so idk.

Just for further posterity, here is the 500mb height anomalies of 4 super Nino winters we've seen recently, which looks like a pretty canonical Nino pattern in the mean. But with Nina effects lingering, will we see a similar pattern this year?

 

Long winded thoughts, but my idea this winter is a pretty torchy start into December and early January. We might see some brief negative NAO spikes by late Jan and Feb which is when we'll need to time an active STJ storm with an arctic front that's pressed off the coast. Even if not, probably some chances for cold spells. I'm also not a long range forecaster so take everything with a grain of salt LOL

 @GaWx What are you thinking/seeing for this winter in the East?

 Hello Newman, 

 For this winter, I’m thinking (none of this should be surprising based on super Nino analogs/models):

-above normal precip (up to 3” above) within a couple hundred miles of the NE coast with highest anomalies near the coast and closer to normal well inland

-above to MA normal precip SE with the largest anomalies in the deep SE/FL, where 4-8” will be common

-anomalies tending to get colder as one goes further SE

-New England/NE US likely to average 3-5F warmer than normal with warmest in N New England

-Mid-Atlantic will likely average ~1-3F warmer than normal with closest to normal near coast

-SE likely averaging near normal to slightly colder than normal with coldest anomalies deep SE/FL

-Regarding wintry precip overall, the SE tends to do best anomalywise in moderate or stronger El Niño winters. But even so, much of the SE, especially deep, is unforecastable since it takes only 1-2 winter storms (often just 1) to make it a very wintry winter there. But that chance tends to be best with El Niño winters vs other winters averaged out. Strong+ Nino winters have tended to have the best chance though moderate may be close.

12 minutes ago, LakePaste25 said:

As I said yesterday, despite the “pause” in Nino 3.4 in August, it has become significantly more east-based regardless.

 

 

Indeed, it has become more E based despite a flat Nino 3.4 recently since Nino 3 has warmed some while Nino 4 has cooled some netting out to an essentially flat period for Nino 3.4.

50 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Martz isn't an expert on glaciers, geology or Nepal. Pictures of the area in question from the blog I linked above show evidence of melting: 1) The glacier has shrunk quite a bit since 2017 and 2) the glacier isn't the pristine white of unmelted snow. 

The storymap that I also linked contains the following paragraph about local temperatures: 

Temperature data from nearby climate stations installed by University of Potsdam show the region has been very warm in the past weeks and months. In addition to the high temperatures across the network, station NPA6 (located approximately 20km from the source area, at 85.28567°N, 28.23455°E) shows rapid temperature increases in the morning in the three days prior to the event, which aligns with the timing of failure (8.37AM Nepal time). These quick temperature swings are a key driver for frost cracking and glacial instability. Bodo Bookhagen (Professor at Uni-Potsdam, Germany) notes that these rapid temperature swings are not evident in the other network sites, indicating this was likely a local event. 

Let me be clear though, its too early to say whether this event was climate related. That's an expert call. 

 

 Thanks, Charlie. Interesting.

 The contradiction of viewpoints/supporting data and info as well as the complexities involved in this terrible disaster are why I said that most of what Martz put in that post is at least worthy of discussion/debate. I think that the odds of CC being at least a little involved are high. I feel that the main debate is whether CC was a major factor or just a minor factor. I agree that it’s too early to conclude anything and there likely will be continued disagreements in upcoming releases. We may never know the exact answer.

29 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

 

Nino 1+2 is very warm, but Adam’s post:

-is ignoring the effect of GW on skewing Nino 1+2 upward in 2026 vs 1997. The highest relative weekly in 1997 was +4.1  (set twice). Relative values for Nino 1+2 are currently 0.5 or more cooler than the non-relatives. NOAA and other orgs have recently been using relative values as official because of the skewing caused by GW.
 

-He’s looking at yesterday’s daily rather than at a weekly average, which is what the historical data is based on.
 

-These OISST charts have recently been warmer than the released NOAA weeklies as has been noted in many posts since July.

-Let’s see what this Monday shows for relative Nino 1+2 averaged over this week. I doubt it will reach +4.1, but we’ll see. I’m guessing high 3s.

33 minutes ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

Do we now have a relative and a traditional PDO now (like we do with the ONI)?

This one shows July as -2.14 and August as -1.84:

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

I’m not aware of a relative PDO. Like the SOI and IOD, I don’t think relative is needed for these 3 indices because all 3 are based on differences between different areas that I assume largely cancel out any effect from GW.

 I do see why there are now two NOAA PDOs: yours is based on ERSST version 5 whereas mine is based on ERSST version 6, the newest version. How about that for adding to confusion? 
 
 With 6 being the newest ERSST, I assume that it is the most official for NOAA PDO now.

11 minutes ago, Ji said:

its already out boss

 

That says August. The August forecast isn’t new. The Sept 1st forecast is the new one we’re waiting for. The monthly Euro forecasts are normally released on the 5th of the month.

 The NOAA August PDO came in at -1.11 vs July’s -1.35. This is the 2nd month in a row for which the NOAA monthly actually came in less negative than what the WCS dailies suggested (see image below). That is even more the case with August, for which the WCS averaged slightly lower than -1.5. This -1.11 compares to the significantly stronger -PDO of Aug of 2023 of -2.02:


 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/v6/index/ersst.v6.pdo.dat

53 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

"Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle...."

whaaaat,  um, no. 

I mean I realize you're asking Don but I could help my self.    

Just in brief and off the top of the head, there are three easy aspects in how CC may both directly and indirectly factor. 

1,  glacial rebound.  

2,  liquid water fluxing

3,  bedrock?

With rebound, that happens because if land spends multiple multiple Millennia in a stable/colder climate regime, the ice accumulation weighs down. This gravitational anomaly supplies a constant pressure downward into the undergirding and surrounding bedrock. Over time ...succumbs by sinking.  Remove the ice, the land may rebound... upward.   And it doesn't do so according to any necessary ease. It tends to do so in jolts felt as tremors.  

With increasing melt ( liquid flux) the basal water may enter ground; in CC, the warming summer means this quantity is rising. Over decades, repetitious freezing and thawing literally cracks the Earth due to phase change expansion(contraction). How much so notwithstanding. But this is a weakening implication in the integrity of the supporting geology beneath the overriding ice - failure ( land slide) results. 

These two also work together.   In fact, #2 actually happens first, then... #1 tremor triggers the landslide. 

Whether these factors were in play in the higher terrain/alpine region of Nepal, I am not claiming so.. But Mr Martz makes a blanket all preclusive statement that is epistemically false. 

Beyond these two, the third relates to, what officiating/reviewed source said or analyzed and proved that "bedrock" indeed failed?   It is possible that the undergirding was actually a strata of compressed glacial deposits mixed with icy compressed rubble. An avalanche was inevitable - probably so, anyway, but if this was the type of supporting foundation beneath the overcasting of ice weight ( which itself was calving the leading segments), then the whole structure probably would not need to wait for the geological time for #1 and #2 to work together. 

 
 Thanks for your reply, John. I’m asking anyone but tagged Don only because he’s been about the most involved with me in the discussion about the Nepal disaster and thus wanted to make sure he sees this.

 Martz appears to be correct in saying that there aren’t going to be many days that go >0C based on my just now seeing what’s down below that I’m quoting from the link below. If ~+1C really is the warmest at 5,364 m or 17.6K feet, is there going to be significant melting way up that high?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-highest-and-lowest-temperatures-ever-recorded-at-Mt-Everest-base-camp

“Highest and lowest recorded temperatures at Everest Base Camp (EBC) depend on which camp and which dataset, but reliable observations come from automatic weather stations (AWS) installed at the South Base Camp (Nepal side, ~5,364 m) and other nearby high-altitude stations.

Summary of best-available values (observations and published AWS records, through May 2024):

• Highest recorded air temperature
  • South (Nepal) Base Camp AWS: about −1.0 °C to +1.0 °C on the warmest days in late spring/early summer (typically May). Many published station summaries and expedition logs report peak values near 0 °C; a commonly cited peak is ~+0.5 °C. Slightly warmer spot measurements in sunlight or lower-elevation tent sites can exceed +1 °C briefly, but sustained, instrumented air-temperature peaks at the official South Base Camp are around 0 °C to +1 °C.”

 Yes, the cocky Chris Martz was wrong with his initial thought that this disaster was earthquake induced. But I think most of this from him yesterday is at least worthy of discussion/debate. Opinions?

Climate alarmists refuse to let go of their narrative about Nepal despite the load of evidence against their claims.

 The avalanche (and by extension, flood) in Nepal last week was triggered by the collapse of bedrock beneath the Yala Glacier, not the glacier partially collapsing itself.

 Global warming doesn’t cause bedrock to buckle. It was likely geological in origin caused by seismic activity in recent years and months causing fractures in the rock. The Himalaya are highly active due to plate tectonics moving India into the Asian continent. And the “melting permafrost” argument doesn’t hold much water either because temperatures have generally been below freezing, even during summer, where the glacier sits ~17,000 feet (5,200 meters) up. You aren’t going to see a lot of days get above 0°C (32°F). Not every environmental disaster that happens needs to be blamed on humans. Nature itself is more than capable of causing these types of events. It’s time to get rid of the mentality that mankind is the cause of every bad thing that happens.

5 hours ago, Ji said:

Hearing rumors that new euro is very snowy

The next Euro forecast going into winter won’t be released until Saturday.

The summer of 2026 ended up with the 2nd strongest summer -SOI back to 1876!
 

Here are the 16 strongest -SOI summers. Note that while 1882 is way out of place with it being cold neutral, the rest are El Niños (with all but 1914 being moderate or stronger for their respective (later) peaks):

1896 (-22) strong

2026 (-21) progged super

1982 (-19) super

1882 (-18) cold neutral

1905 (-18) moderate

1997 (-17) super

1941 (-17) moderate

1940 (-16) strong

1987 (-16) moderate

2015 (-14) super

1965 (-14) super

1994 (-14) moderate

1914 (-14) weak

1977 (-14) moderate

1888 (-13) super

1972 (-12) super

This is the first time I recall seeing the white shading, which is warmer than a +5C anomaly, on the TAO surface maps. It is within the E section, in a narrow corridor just S of the equator and E of 110W.

5 hours ago, Scott747 said:

This has more of an Allison feel as opposed to Harvey.

 

Is there any chance that Edouard could be retired due to heavy rains, which caused Allison to be retired?

To add to the above, here are Nino 3 and Nino 4 (note that these aren’t relative, but that’s ok since my point is to show the slopes):

Nino 3: still a slow rise through Aug instead of nearly flat like 3.4:

Nino 4: had been falling through Aug 17th though a bumpy net slow rise since:

 The new relative OISST (not ERSST) has just been released and the change from July jibes well for Nino 3.4 with the slope of the graphs we’ve been following (though as I’ve also been saying the weeklies/last 2 months are notably cooler than what the cyclonicwx graphs have been suggesting).

2026    7      2.84     1.73     0.34      1.38
2026    8      3.35     2.52     0.11      1.78

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/rel_mthsst9120.txt
 
  This 1.78 is a new record high (back to 1981) for August Nino 3.4 as it barely beats the 1.74 of 1997. Here are the warmest Augusts since 1981:

2026 1.78
1997 1.74
2015 1.30
1987 1.24
1982 1.19
1991 0.82
2002 0.80
1994 0.72
2004 0.71
2023 0.63

 Note that Nino 3 rose twice as much and Nino 4 fell 0.23! Also, Nino 1+2 rose the 2nd most at 0.51. All of this indicates that this Nino has been becoming increasingly E based and that the W portion of Nino 3.4 is what is holding it back vs what model projections had been.

 Also, note that Nino 3.4 rose only 0.4C from the July avg to the Aug avg. I say “only” because several models were suggesting (as I’ve posted about several times) a record rapid rise for 3.4 of ~1C. It remains to be seen what the rise was per ERSST, but it’s clear that August didn’t warm nearly as much in 3.4 as model consensus had suggested, which has caused some at least near-term cooling of progs in some models’ recent runs.

 Here’s the latest OISST relative 3.4 chart through Sept 1st: STILL no sign of resumption of warming with it practically flat the last 31 days!

The CDAS (not relative) agrees with the continuing flatness: