2025-2026 ENSO

[jm1220]

3 hours ago, mitchnick said:

Negative PDO may have peaked with notable cooling around Japan over the past 15 days.

Good. Hopefully lots of typhoons in that area this summer. 

[GaWx]

5 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Subsurface for June and the first half of July.

Interesting dichotomy between the warm neutral subsurface and the cold neutral surface:

[40/70 Benchmark]

37 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Narrowly focused into the Bay Area in an otherwise sea of warm across the Northern Hemisphere this summer.

 

"40/70....I am your father" (breathes heavily)

[40/70 Benchmark]

22 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Interesting dichotomy between the warm neutral subsurface and the cold neutral surface:

Probably warm ENSO for 2026-2027.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

@bluewaveSeriously, though....I do recall telling you last season that I expected your October MJO indicator to be amplified and favorable and I do expect that again, so we'll see.

We have only had one October really amplified MJO 5-6 during each multiyear La Niña going back to 2010. October 2024…+2.76…October 2020…+2.81….October 2017…+3.35….October 2010….+2.88.

The other La Niña years surrounding these in each group had a weaker October MJO in 5-6 like in 2022, 2021, 2016, and 2011. So the more amplified October years featured La Niña +PNA mismatches.

With the exception of last year, these were very snowy winters. But the WPAC pattern and Pacific Jet never relaxed last winter like all the previous mismatch winters did. This is what I was pointing out last year why I mentioned early on that there were competing influences which didn’t exist during the other winters. So not to expect the same type of outcome.  

So this would be a first time occurrence if the MJO 5 peaked again this October in the +2.76 to +3.35 range. Seems like it’s some type of fall forcing event which affects the winter PNA during La Ninas. 

It’s why my guess a few months back that this 25-26 winter will be warmer than last winter was with the PNA averaging less positive than last winter did. But since the snowfall was so low last winter, it wouldn’t take much for one decent snow event to surpass last seasons snowfall totals from around Philly to Boston.

Plus it’s possible that we could get a least one winter month with a decent +PNA like we saw in January 2022 even though the PNA was strongly negative in December tilting the whole winter -PNA. That was largely driven by the MJO 8. January 2022 was the last winter month around NYC which was both cold and snowy especially Long Island.

We have also seen very impressive 500 ridges in Canada since the 2023-2024 El Niño generally boosting the +PNA. So we’ll have to wait for the October verification this year to know if it will be like  past multiyear La Ninas following the mismatch winters like we had in 2024-2025. Always have to leave open the possibility of a first time occurrence with back to back mismatch events. But this hasn’t happened yet since 2010.

[michsnowfreak]

22 hours ago, bluewave said:

The only thing consistent about Ann Arbor’s winter temperatures since the late 1800s has been a steady warming trend. December is up +4.3° with Jan at +3.2° and February +6.1°.

The snowfall has seen a nice increase over this period as you pointed out. This could be a function of the warming winters holding more moisture while still being sufficiently cold enough to increase the snow. It’s one of the benefits of living in a colder region. But this benefit isn’t held by other less warm regions which have seen a steady decrease in snowfall with their rising temperatures.

But relative to other parts of Michigan which can really cash in on lake effect snows, the SE corner was never a particularly wintry  part of the state compared to areas further north. But at least places like Ann Arbor have seen a decent improvement relative to the old days which didn’t see as much snow. 
 

 

Remember this is a coop station. The data is suspiciously cold. One thing that IS good about stations like this (coop stations, unmoved for 140+ years) is that you can still see the "good" and "not good" winters by comparing Ann Arbor to nearby Detroit.

I have noted on multiple occasions that locally December has warmed the most, January not at all, and February slightly over the last 100 years. And Ann Arbor is yet another station that shows this. An increase of 3.4F in Dec, 0.0F in Jan, 1.5F in Feb.

Avg January temperature regression the last 100 years (1926-2025)
Toledo: -0.8F
Detroit: -0.4F
Flint: -0.1F
Ann Arbor: 0.0F
Saginaw: +0.3F
 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

We have only had one October really amplified MJO 5-6 during each multiyear La Niña going back to 2010. October 2024…+2.76…October 2020…+2.81….October 2017…+3.35….October 2010….+2.88.

The other La Niña years surrounding these in each group had a weaker October MJO in 5-6 like in 2022, 2021, 2016, and 2011. So the more amplified October years featured La Niña +PNA mismatches.

With the exception of last year, these were very snowy winters. But the WPAC pattern and Pacific Jet never relaxed last winter like all the previous mismatch winters did. This is what I was pointing out last year why I mentioned early on that there were competing influences which didn’t exist during the other winters. So not to expect the same type of outcome.  

So this would be a first time occurrence if the MJO 5 peaked again this October in the +2.76 to +3.35 range. Seems like it’s some type of fall forcing event which affects the winter PNA during La Ninas. 

It’s why my guess a few months back that this 25-26 winter will be warmer than last winter was with the PNA averaging less positive than last winter did. But since the snowfall was so low last winter, it wouldn’t take much for one decent snow event to surpass last seasons snowfall totals from around Philly to Boston.

Plus it’s possible that we could get a least one winter month with a decent +PNA like we saw in January 2022 even though the PNA was strongly negative in December tilting the whole winter -PNA. That was largely driven by the MJO 8. January 2022 was the last winter month around NYC which was both cold and snowy especially Long Island.

We have also seen very impressive 500 ridges in Canada since the 2023-2024 El Niño generally boosting the +PNA. So we’ll have to wait for the October verification this year to know if it will be like  past multiyear La Ninas following the mismatch winters like we had in 2024-2025. Always have to leave open the possibility of a first time occurrence with back to back mismatch events. But this hasn’t happened yet since 2010.

I could have sworn 2021-2022 was a mismatch season...interesting that we still managed a mismatch period minus the amplified October MJO....I could certainly see something like that occurring this season.

I agree this season will probably be warmer with a more consistently negative PNA, yet still manage more snowfall.

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, michsnowfreak said:

Remember this is a coop station. The data is suspiciously cold. One thing that IS good about stations like this (coop stations, unmoved for 140+ years) is that you can still see the "good" and "not good" winters by comparing Ann Arbor to nearby Detroit.

I have noted on multiple occasions that locally December has warmed the most, January not at all, and February slightly over the last 100 years. And Ann Arbor is yet another station that shows this. An increase of 3.4F in Dec, 0.0F in Jan, 1.5F in Feb.

Avg January temperature regression the last 100 years (1926-2025)
Toledo: -0.8F
Detroit: -0.4F
Flint: -0.1F
Ann Arbor: 0.0F
Saginaw: +0.3F
 

 

You are something else. I love how you always do what you accuse me and @bluewaveof doing. Let me try to understand this: Co-op data good when it shows less warming, co-op data bad when it shows more warming? Am I doing this right?

And you always claim I ignore data I don't like but are CONSTANTLY doing the same: "The data is suspiciously cold." My man, this is data collected by the University of Michigan. At least the older data collection was probably handled by the earth sciences department. Are you saying the University of Michigan doesn't/didn't know how to properly collect temperatures and precipitation? It's funny because if I doubt an old record high temperature that's way out of line with surrounding observations, you accuse me of doing this. Now, you are out here complaining about old temperature records from a top public research university. In the hierarchy of things, I always give the most weight to records collected by the Weather Bureau/NWS at first-order sites, followed by universities, experimental farms and state/national forests and parks, since these are the sites that were manned by meteorologists, agronomists, or park rangers [i.e., people with an earth science background].

You also like to go on about cherrypicking start dates (1960s & 70s). I like to use these as a baseline since the data is more consistent [i.e., fewer station moves and less biases] and more relevant to current trends. But you say its cherrypicking. But now, you throw out the observations from the 1800s because you don't like the trend, and insist on showing the trend from 1920s? How is that not considered cherrypicking? Warming since 1880, significant warming since 1960/1970 - oh, but we must only consider the trend from exactly the 1920s, where there is little warming? 

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, michsnowfreak said:

Remember this is a coop station. The data is suspiciously cold. One thing that IS good about stations like this (coop stations, unmoved for 140+ years) is that you can still see the "good" and "not good" winters by comparing Ann Arbor to nearby Detroit.

I have noted on multiple occasions that locally December has warmed the most, January not at all, and February slightly over the last 100 years. And Ann Arbor is yet another station that shows this. An increase of 3.4F in Dec, 0.0F in Jan, 1.5F in Feb.

Avg January temperature regression the last 100 years (1926-2025)
Toledo: -0.8F
Detroit: -0.4F
Flint: -0.1F
Ann Arbor: 0.0F
Saginaw: +0.3F
 

 

For a more evidence-based analysis, NCEI shows January has warmed at a rate of about 2F/century on average in the whole of Southeast Michigan. Why the divergence between your numbers? None of them, except the Ann Arbor data is from a single site. According to your analysis (I didn't independently verify), the Ann Arbor data is exactly flat over the last 100 years. But reviewing the data, the time of observation moves from 5 pm to early morning. There is also a bias from the switch to MMTS, both of which are corrected in the NCEI data. The other sites are all amalgamations of distinct stations. Toledo and Detroit go from rooftop stations in downtown [and, in the case of Toledo, very near Lake Erie, which has a warming influence in the winter] to suburban (DTW) or even downright rural (TOL) airport locations, with proper siting on the ground.

[mitchnick]

6 hours ago, snowman19 said:

As Ray has mentioned a few times, descending solar from a solar max peak is actually more hostile to NAO/AO blocking in winter than it is right at solar max peak

Who referenced Nao or winter? I just pointed out the current solar spike was a short term spike. No more, no less. The irresistible impulse of you and Bluewave to turn everything negative for posters who enjoy cold or snow is strange to say the least. Actually, it's likely much worse than strange. 

[Stormchaserchuck1]

July will likely be the 5th straight month with +AO. 

How does that roll-forward, through March? Here's an animation of the next four 5-month periods.. as you can see there is a -0.3 H5 correlation over the Arctic circle, or a 57-58% chance of the +AO continuing (over the Arctic circle, north of Alaska at least). This is actually a little more +epo than +ao in technical classifications, in the roll-forward. 

[michsnowfreak]

1 hour ago, TheClimateChanger said:

You are something else. I love how you always do what you accuse me and @bluewaveof doing. Let me try to understand this: Co-op data good when it shows less warming, co-op data bad when it shows more warming? Am I doing this right?

And you always claim I ignore data I don't like but are CONSTANTLY doing the same: "The data is suspiciously cold." My man, this is data collected by the University of Michigan. At least the older data collection was probably handled by the earth sciences department. Are you saying the University of Michigan doesn't/didn't know how to properly collect temperatures and precipitation? It's funny because if I doubt an old record high temperature that's way out of line with surrounding observations, you accuse me of doing this. Now, you are out here complaining about old temperature records from a top public research university. In the hierarchy of things, I always give the most weight to records collected by the Weather Bureau/NWS at first-order sites, followed by universities, experimental farms and state/national forests and parks, since these are the sites that were manned by meteorologists, agronomists, or park rangers [i.e., people with an earth science background].

You also like to go on about cherrypicking start dates (1960s & 70s). I like to use these as a baseline since the data is more consistent [i.e., fewer station moves and less biases] and more relevant to current trends. But you say its cherrypicking. But now, you throw out the observations from the 1800s because you don't like the trend, and insist on showing the trend from 1920s? How is that not considered cherrypicking? Warming since 1880, significant warming since 1960/1970 - oh, but we must only consider the trend from exactly the 1920s, where there is little warming? 

No YOU are something else. I picked a round figure- 100 years. Using the same graphs you always use. This is so rich coming from someone who goes into everyones subforum (where most ignore you) with the most random data for the most random starting points. You just pick based on whatever gives you what you want. One minute youll use POR the next you will decry it. I never said I threw out data, I brought up how the 1880s data seemed low at this coop station. Meanwhile, you ALWAYS have a problem with older data you dont like and are always discounting it. See, ive studied my areas climate data for years. You just plug in numbers for anything anywhere to find what you want. Since you got so offended that I questioned anything about the Ann Arbor data, you must LOVE how their winter temps have remained pretty steady for decades and snowfall has MORE THAN DOUBLED since records began.

[Stormchaserchuck1]

Here is US pattern 5 months after 5-straight months of +AO (Aug-Dec)