Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,541
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Gonzalez Brittany
    Newest Member
    Gonzalez Brittany
    Joined

Winter El Nino Tracking Thread 2023-2024


Ji
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I am actually fine with a Nino peaking in October. We have had 4 Nino's in 18 years. And all of them have delivered. Maybe not wall to wall snow. But they all have been above average snowfall out here.

Yeah but a strong one is no bueno unless you were able to do well in 97-98. Every other super niño has sucked. 66 good, 73 bad, 83 good, 98 bad, 16 good....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looks like we are going big....lets hope for a jan 16 repeeat
 
FsVMLuKaYAANvHo?format=png&name=medium

Spring barrier though, no? I’d hold off a few weeks before getting too excited / worried about the strength of the impending niño.

Hopefully we don’t get a super niño. Sure, MAYBE we get lucky and see another once in a blue moon monster like 2016, but those are hard to come by and it’ll likely be followed by another 2+ years of niña. A moderate to borderline strong niño is better for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkSharkWX said:

I don't think we'll get a super nino, especially coming off of a 3 year nina and a -PDO, theres also usually some time in between super events, 1982 -> 1997 -> 2015
(technically 1972/73 was a strong, not super nino cause its ONI was only barely at super criteria for 2 months, not 3)

This could be one of those weird edge cases where the -pdo actually helps us by putting the brakes on the nino from going super. 

And I don’t think we’ve passed the spring barrier yet… iow I think the models are being too aggressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

This could be one of those weird edge cases where the -pdo actually helps us by putting the brakes on the nino from going super. 

And I don’t think we’ve passed the spring barrier yet… iow I think the models are being too aggressive. 

yeah, pretty sure some of them we're predicting a weak-moderate nino last year for this winter and we all know how that turned out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 6:14 PM, Maestrobjwa said:

Yeah but a strong one is no bueno unless you were able to do well in 97-98. Every other super niño has sucked. 66 good, 73 bad, 83 good, 98 bad, 16 good....

you really need to stop attributing predictability and causality to  patterns within random chaos.  Patterns happen within any string of numbers from random chance. 73 wasn’t really a super Nino so it’s questionable if your pattern is even legit. But a pattern without a logical causality or link is just random chance. There is no logical causality to that pattern you cited.  It’s way more likely to just be random chance. Like flipping heads/tails every other flip for a run. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Maestrobjwa another issue with the way you use patterns is not normalizing the data to account for changing norms.  This is when you try to use past snowfall results as predictive.   Let me illustrate.  From 1884-1970 Baltimore never went more than 5 years without a 20” snow season.  But that was never predictive that it couldn’t. The first issue is looking at the data closer no one season showed a significant predictive link to the next.   The fact it had never gone 6 consecutive years was simply the fact each year had a 58% chance Baltimore got 20” so the odds of getting a 42% result 6 straight times was very low. But once you got to 5 the odds were still 42% it would happen again. It just never had. Until it did. It was only a matter of time! 
 

But that fact is even more irrelevant now. Because the odds have changed. Since 1970 it’s happened 3 times!  That’s because the odds of 20” in a season dropped from 58% between 1884-1970 to 23% the last 30 years.  And running a linear regression shows it’s likely about 18% now!  
 

So the odds of going on long runs with less that 20” is increasing because the odds of getting 20” in any given season went from 58% to 18% making that older data even more irrelevant as a predictive factor.  
 

So now…Baltimore stands at the end of a 7th season without 20”. And it has never had 8. But that means nothing. With the lowering probability of snow each season it’s only a matter of time. It’s almost inevitable given the current probabilities that eventually Baltimore will get 8 years without 20”. And it’s likely to be next year since the data says in any given season it’s now less than a 20% chance of 20”. 
 

Before you jump off a ledge that data is blind to things like enso.  Right now we are predicted to get a Nino which would significantly improve our odds. But that’s a completely independent variable. For example if the models are wrong and we end up with an enso neutral next winter then the data says it’s probably about 80% likely we don’t get 20” and go 8 years. Regardless of the fact it’s never happened yet in our records. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CAPE said:

The latest CFS monthly gets into January.

cfs.thumb.png.a38f37d6863b45f1728f1f0256be5b7c.png

Not a fan of that offshore W trough, dig that east a little more and we get a cutter signal. Retrograde it west, we get a bona fide Aleutian low in a classic setup. Maybe that’s how this possibility (out of a wide range atm) might evolve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Not a fan of that offshore W trough, dig that east a little more and we get a cutter signal. Retrograde it west, we get a bona fide Aleutian low in a classic setup. Maybe that’s how this possibility (out of a wide range atm) might evolve?

The CanSIPS has the more ideal look. At 8 months out, it's just nice to see something other than boilerplate Nina. The depicted negative height anomalies across the southern half of the US and +heights in the NAO space are refreshing and Nino-ish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Terpeast said:

Not a fan of that offshore W trough, dig that east a little more and we get a cutter signal. Retrograde it west, we get a bona fide Aleutian low in a classic setup. Maybe that’s how this possibility (out of a wide range atm) might evolve?

it's because the CFS is more basin-wide/east based and the CanSIPS is more classic Modoki... the farther east-based the Nino is, the farther east that negative anomaly offshore is

ezgif-3-c33c0b5cd2.thumb.gif.96f0d461ba44cb9100b7d70442a7f9f3.gif

either way, I would take that 500mb for Jan in a heartbeat. 10x better than what we've seen over the last several years with deep negative anomalies over the SE US

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

it's because the CFS is more basin-wide/east based and the CanSIPS is more classic Modoki... the farther east-based the Nino is, the farther east that negative anomaly offshore is

ezgif-3-c33c0b5cd2.thumb.gif.96f0d461ba44cb9100b7d70442a7f9f3.gif

either way, I would take that 500mb for Jan in a heartbeat. 10x better than what we've seen over the last several years with deep negative anomalies over the SE US

At least we see warm sst anomalies hugging the US W coast on cfs. Not a bad look at all… just closer to our ideal setup than we’ve had all year. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Terpeast said:

At least we see warm sst anomalies hugging the US W coast on cfs. Not a bad look at all… just closer to our ideal setup than we’ve had all year. 

 

5 hours ago, Terpeast said:

At least we see warm sst anomalies hugging the US W coast on cfs. Not a bad look at all… just closer to our ideal setup than we’ve had all year. 

I always enjoy reading analysis by true professionals! Those red letters below your username always adds credibility.  Now, on to a non professional.

A little over 4 months ago when I issued my winter forecast for my twice weekly newsletter, the CFS was predicting a colder than normal and wetter than normal winter, December - February. We had just the opposite.   My track record for the past 15 years has been impressive, this year a total failure, because I weighted the CFS too heavily on what should have been a declining La Nina. The SER acted more like a Nina on steroids!

Do any of you guys have any professional thoughts regarding how or why the CFS was such a failure for this past winter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, stormy said:

 

I always enjoy reading analysis by true professionals! Those red letters below your username always adds credibility.  Now, on to a non professional.

A little over 4 months ago when I issued my winter forecast for my twice weekly newsletter, the CFS was predicting a colder than normal and wetter than normal winter, December - February. We had just the opposite.   My track record for the past 15 years has been impressive, this year a total failure, because I weighted the CFS too heavily on what should have been a declining La Nina. The SER acted more like a Nina on steroids!

Do any of you guys have any professional thoughts regarding how or why the CFS was such a failure for this past winter?

The CFSs verification is barely above random chance once past it’s month 1 forecast.  Frankly none of our seasonal guidance has much success past month 1!  We just aren’t there yet. 
 

As for the SER, it did respond to a dying Nina, there is just a misconception that I’ve pointed out before wrt what a Nina heading to neutral means. There is the belief in some circles a dying Nina is good but there is no data to support that. Nina’s that enter neutral by March show no increase in snow in the mid atl v Nina’s that stay strong. 
 

Furthermore look at the h5 comp for all Nina’s in the last 30 years…

0E0FB9B2-D8E0-4525-8DD0-0729E0D29658.png.1697598be4bec023d7f4b38bcbde8f00.png
there actually isn’t a strong SER signature. That’s another misconception that a Nina=SER. But look at the enso neutral years following a Nina. 
83F27183-51C3-47DC-B6B7-6968D5309470.png.c1dacaee811142797ab988d697a88213.png

There’s the SER!  This winter actually behaves more like a neutral following a Nina than an actual Nina. In the end the early dying Nina might have killed our winter more than had the Nina not faded. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

The CFSs verification is barely above random chance once past it’s month 1 forecast.  Frankly none of our seasonal guidance has much success past month 1!  We just aren’t there yet. 
 

As for the SER, it did respond to a dying Nina, there is just a misconception that I’ve pointed out before wrt what a Nina heading to neutral means. There is the belief in some circles a dying Nina is good but there is no data to support that. Nina’s that enter neutral by March show no increase in snow in the mid atl v Nina’s that stay strong. 
 

Furthermore look at the h5 comp for all Nina’s in the last 30 years…

0E0FB9B2-D8E0-4525-8DD0-0729E0D29658.png.1697598be4bec023d7f4b38bcbde8f00.png
there actually isn’t a strong SER signature. That’s another misconception that a Nina=SER. But look at the enso neutral years following a Nina. 
83F27183-51C3-47DC-B6B7-6968D5309470.png.c1dacaee811142797ab988d697a88213.png

There’s the SER!  This winter actually behaves more like a neutral following a Nina than an actual Nina. In the end the early dying Nina might have killed our winter more than had the Nina not faded. 

Thank you for your explanation, it is appreciated. I completely agree that none of our seasonal guidance has much success past month one. We just aren't there yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...