2025-2026 ENSO

[Stormchaserchuck1]

15 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Can you do Solar min out to +24 months?

Solar Min is included in the maps. It's Max minus Min 

If the Solar is 500 (Min) and Max is 1500 (Max) and the average is 1000, Min is [-500] and Max is [+500]

The map is default positive phase, with both included, so for the Min, just flip the correlation coefficient around (+0.3 over Greenland vs -0.3). But it's also part of the same map. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

To bluewave's point, here is the following Winter +1 year after a +PNA December

December +12 months

January +13 months

February +14 months

Somewhat of a signal there for warmer than average temps in the eastern 1/2. I didn't sort it out by negative ENSO, but the general gives you a lot more data points. It's on ok signal (ENSO usually changes state the year after a relative PNA Winter, which I will say again is interesting. It's counter-intuitive)

 

[GaWx]

24 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Solar Min is included in the maps. It's Max minus Min 

If the Solar is 500 (Min) and Max is 1500 (Max) and the average is 1000, Min is [-500] and Max is [+500]

The map is default positive phase, with both included, so for the Min, just flip the correlation coefficient around (+0.3 over Greenland vs -0.3). But it's also part of the same map. 

Thanks.
1) So, for the 6 years, is this correct going from the most -NAO to the most +NAO?

min+2

min +1

min

max

max +1

max +2

 

2) It’s too bad we can’t see the other 5 years of the 11 year average cycle. But with cycles’ length differing cycle to cycle as opposed to always being 11 yrs, perhaps it would be less useful to go out 3-5 years from max.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

7 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks.
1) So, for the 6 years, is this correct going from the most -NAO to the most +NAO?

min+2

min +1

min

max

max +1

max +2

 

2) It’s too bad we can’t see the other 5 years of the 11 year average cycle. But with cycles’ length differing cycle to cycle as opposed to always being 11 yrs, perhaps it would be less useful to go out 3-5 years from max.

I think you get it. If Min = -NAO = +2. If Max = +NAO = +2.  If Min = +NAO = -2, If Max =+NAO = +2, so the 2nd set would be "0", and the first set "+4". 

It's too bad it doesn't go out further. I've tried several times, hoping they would update. It's a 73-year base period, so there is not that much data cut off going out +3-4 years. To do the full 11 years, it would have to be manual, but you can see what NAO state is favored 1-2 years before a Solar Max/Min event at least (weaker overall correlation)

[GaWx]

2 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

I think you get it. If Min = -NAO = +2. If Max = +NAO = +2.  If Min = +NAO = -2, If Max =+NAO = +2, so the 2nd set would be "0", and the first set "+4". 

It's too bad it doesn't go out further. I've tried several times, hoping they would update. It's a 62-year base period, so there is not that much data cut off going out +3-4 years. To do the full 11 years, it would have to be manual, but you can see what NAO state is favor 1-2 years before a Solar Max/Min event at least (weaker overall correlation)

 You lost me with the bolded.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

7 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 You lost me with the bolded.

You can do "lags" and "leads"

A lead is the index comes first.. +1-24 months

A lag is the 500mb composite comes before the index.. -1-24 months

So -24 months is 2 years before a Solar Max

There is actually a -NAO signal at -24 months

-12 months before.. transitioning to Neutral

So since Solar cycles are almost perfectly cyclical, there is actually a +correlation all the way until 1 year before the next Solar peak (Min or Max)! 

So if the average cycle is 11 years, that's a 0 to +9 year NAO correlation composite

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

You can do "lags" and "leads"

A lead is the index comes first.. +1-24 months

A lag is the 500mb composite comes before the index.. -1-24 months

So -24 months is 2 years before a Solar Max

There is actually a -NAO signal at -24 months

-12 months before.. transitioning to Neutral

So since Solar cycles are almost perfectly cyclical, there is actually a +correlation all the way until 1 year before the next Solar peak (Min or Max)! 

So if the average cycle is 11 years, that's a 0 to +9 year NAO correlation composite

Chuck,

 If you’d look real closely at the cycles, you’d actually see that the average length from min to max is significantly shorter than that for max to min:

Cycle: Min to Max (years)/Max to Min (years)

1: 6/5

2: 3/6

3: 3/6

4: 3/11

5: 6/6

6: 6/7

7: 7/3

8: 4/6

9: 5/8

10: 4/7

11: 3/8

12: 5/6

13: 4/8

14: 4/8

15: 4/6

16: 5/5

17: 4/7

18: 3/7

19: 3/7

20: 4/8

21: 3/7

22: 3/7

23: 4/8

24: 6/5

(25: likely 5/?)

Avg of 1-24: 4.3/6.8

% of cycles with shorter rise than fall: 79%
% with opposite only 13%

——————

Aside:

-% with 11 year cycle only 25% though 11 is the average; 29% had 10 year (the mode)

-Range 9-14

-Next min very likely within 2030-32.

 

https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Very interesting. I think we need to separate the top half and bottom half for "max" and "min". Within that, we assign a +0-9 year lead for best predicted NAO state. For example: If year 2000-2009 is Solar Min with 2004 Solar Min peak (not really data, I am just making an example), we are saying +0-9 years makes 2004-2013 the highest probability for -NAO. I think 2024 was the peak for this Solar Max (correct me if I'm wrong), so we're saying the tendency is for 2024-2033 to be highest likelihood for +NAO, since the next 4-5 years will be declining, but still in the top half, most likely. It is only 1 year before the next Solar Cycle peaks (so coming Solar Min peak) before the NAO tendency actually changes from previous Solar Max peak!

Edit: I see 11 years is for the whole cycle to circulate, not to go from one to the other.. so it's just a +NAO tendency until 1 year before coming Solar Min peak, which your research is saying 6-7 years after Solar Max peak, so 2030-2031.. +NAO tendency until ~2029-2030

[bluewave]

19 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

What's your thinking on the NAO for next winter? Do you agree if we see more blockiness this summer and a -NAO rainy summer that the chances are higher that we will have a +NAO for the winter with less snowfall (under 20 inches for NYC)?

This is something I've noticed as a regular pattern for many decades.

The NAO and AO have become really volatile over the years. With big swings from positive to negative over very short periods. So trying to do a detailed long range AO and and NAO forecast for next winter would probably be low skill at this point. 

This past winter the AO was negative and the NAO positive. This decoupling between the 2 indices has become more common during the 2020s. Plus on the days with .25 and more of precipitation around NYC this last winter the -AO and -NAO linked up with the Southeast Ridge. 

My guess is that this is related to surface pressures rising near the Azores  during the winter. When the -AO links up with the Southeast Ridge the AO still registers as negative. But when the blocking near Iceland and Greenland links up with the East Atlantic or European Subtropical Ridge, the NAO registers as positive. So the rising pressures to the south near Europe have been preventing more -NAO winters in recent years. 

If we had lower pressures near the Azores this past winter, then it would have been a -NAO winter since pressures were above average near Iceland. Notice how much different it was from the pattern in 2010 with the record -NAO. 
 

The shift to a much more positive EA over time seems to have been also influencing the NAO.
 

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/ea.shtml

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Good post bluewave. Europe has had a really linear Winter warming trend that has spanned the last few decades. I remember seeing a graph of Germany's snowfall and it was a consistent 25 degree angle down since the 1960s/70s. Last Winter Europe was really warm, so the trend continues there.  It seems to be at least somewhat correlated to the NAO index, like you say. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The NAO and AO have become really volatile over the years. With big swings from positive to negative over very short periods. So trying to do a detailed long range AO and and NAO forecast for next winter would probably be low skill at this point. 

This past winter the AO was negative and the NAO positive. This decoupling between the 2 indices has become more common during the 2020s. Plus on the days with .25 and more of precipitation around NYC this last winter the -AO and -NAO linked up with the Southeast Ridge. 

My guess is that this is related to surface pressures rising near the Azores  during the winter. When the -AO links up with the Southeast Ridge the AO still registers as negative. But when the blocking near Iceland and Greenland links up with the East Atlantic or European Subtropical Ridge, the NAO registers as positive. So the rising pressures to the south near Europe have been preventing more -NAO winters in recent years. 

If we had lower pressures near the Azores this past winter, then it would have been a -NAO winter since pressures were above average near Iceland. Notice how much different it was from the pattern in 2010 with the record -NAO. 
 

The shift to a much more positive EA over time seems to have been also influencing the NAO.
 

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/ea.shtml

Some good reasoning right here, Chris.... what are your thoughts on the increased NAO blocking in springtime, even late springtime (May).... is this a seesaw effect to balance out what we're seeing in the winter?

[40/70 Benchmark]

21 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Good post.. lots of data shows +years after a solar peak has the highest cold season NAO correlation

Solar Max +0 years

Solar Max +1 year

Solar Max +2 years

As you can see, the south part of the NAO measurement (central North Atlantic High pressure) increases pretty substantially +2 years time from Solar peak. The final image looks more uniform +NAO, vs just a northern latitude feature in the first image. 

Yea, I think once we get beyond 2026, its becomes less hostile for -NAO, but +NAO still favored until we hit the min early next decade. The ascending portion of the cycle is best for -NAO.

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 hours ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

To bluewave's point, here is the following Winter +1 year after a +PNA December

December +12 months

January +13 months

February +14 months

Somewhat of a signal there for warmer than average temps in the eastern 1/2. I didn't sort it out by negative ENSO, but the general gives you a lot more data points. It's on ok signal (ENSO usually changes state the year after a relative PNA Winter, which I will say again is interesting. It's counter-intuitive)

 

I interpret that as only really having much utility at all for February, which isn't much of a news flash that February will have shitty climo if we repeat cool ENSO. I guess I don't interpret this as being as telling as you and Chris do. But like I said, with you lock-step on the NAO.

That said, I won't be shocked if next season is RNA....so not necessarily arguing against that. I do think we are in for more PNA moving forward, though....regardless of what happens next year.