2025-2026 ENSO

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, snowman19 said:

Looks like the new CFS CHI200 forecast gets the MJO as far as phase 6/7 before it fades then re-emerges it right back into the IO and starts propagating it eastward again. 
 

@bluewave I’m starting to wonder if this is going to be yet another winter of MJO waves hitting a brick wall in phase 6/7….

It’s always a good question to ask as we haven’t had a solid MJO 8 during the winter since January 2022. The standard MJO playbook has been a weakening before reaching 8 and then reloading back into the IO through the MC to WP.

If we do eventually see another MJO 8 again, it probably won’t be forecast much more than a week or two in advance. But I am hoping we can see at least another weak reflection of January 2022 type event a some point in the coming winters.

 

[snowman19]

AAM, which as expected has risen to near neutral after a long period of solid -AAM, is progged to return to La Niña supporting solid -AAM in early Nov:

[mention=13098]snowman19[/mention]

If the MJO fails to propagate past phase 6/7 and ends up re-emerging back in the IO, which some models are showing now, then another run of strong -AAM becomes a very distinct possibility once we get into November

[MJO812]

[snowman19]

8 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

The AMO never went negative this summer. More ridiculous hype and clickbait for subscription money from those clowns. Nice New Foundland warm pool too, which is actually supportive of -NAO’s linking up with the WAR/SE ridge

@donsutherland1

[MJO812]

9 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

The AMO never went negative this summer. More ridiculous hype and clickbait for subscription money from those clowns. Nice New Foundland warm pool too, which is actually supportive of -NAO’s linking up with the WAR/SE ridge

@donsutherland1

Their winter forecast is similiar to others on social media in regards to this winter. Weak La Nina , alot of snow cover up north and a greater chance of a negative NAO.

 

[GaWx]

22 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

Their winter forecast is similiar to others on social media in regards to this winter. Weak La Nina , alot of snow cover up north and a greater chance of a negative NAO.

 

 There have been only 6 (13%) sub -0.25 NAOs averaged over DJF since 1980 and they were all within ~2 years of a sunspot cycle minimum:

1984-5, 1986-7, 1995-6, 2009-10, 2010-1, and 2020-1.

 Being that this autumn has been in a persistent very active sunspot period after the peak only about a year ago, 2025-6 will still be during a mainly active sunspot period. As we get out to 2028-9 and going into the early 2030s, we should then be within ~2 years of the next cycle min. Therefore, based on the last 45 winters and assuming that pattern continues, ~2028-9 should be the next winter with a good shot at a sub -0.25 NAO averaged out. Hopefully like was the case in the mid-1980s and 2009-1, we’ll get two -NAO winters between 2028-9 and ~2031-2. The caveat is that this recent decades pattern of -NAOs during only weak sunspot periods has been due to randomness.

[anthonymm]

8 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 There have been only 6 (13%) sub -0.25 NAOs averaged over DJF since 1980 and they were all within ~2 years of a sunspot cycle minimum:

1984-5, 1986-7, 1995-6, 2009-10, 2010-1, and 2020-1.

 Being that this autumn has been in a persistent very active sunspot period after the peak only about a year ago, 2025-6 will still be during a mainly active sunspot period. As we get out to 2028-9 and going into the early 2030s, we should then be within ~2 years of the next cycle min. Therefore, based on the last 45 winters and assuming that pattern continues, ~2028-9 should be the next winter with a good shot at a sub -0.25 NAO averaged out. Hopefully like was the case in the mid-1980s and 2009-1, we’ll get two -NAO winters between 2028-9 and ~2031-2

Not so fast: 

https://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/chiodo%2Betal-NATUREGEO-2019.pdf?utm_source

[GaWx]

9 minutes ago, anthonymm said:

Not so fast: 

https://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/chiodo%2Betal-NATUREGEO-2019.pdf?utm_source

Hey Anthony,

 I had just added this at the end right before you posted:

The caveat is that this recent decades pattern of -NAOs during only weak sunspot periods has been due to randomness.

 I’m only looking at the period since 1980, when -NAO winters started becoming rare. There have only been 6 (13%) of them with a -NAO. All were within 2 years of a sunspot minimum with sunspots averaging <35 during DJF. I can’t prove it hasn’t been coincidental though. That’s why I said,

 Therefore, based on the last 45 winters and assuming that pattern continues, ~2028-9 should be the next winter with a good shot at a sub -0.25 NAO averaged out.

[40/70 Benchmark]

50 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 There have been only 6 (13%) sub -0.25 NAOs averaged over DJF since 1980 and they were all within ~2 years of a sunspot cycle minimum:

1984-5, 1986-7, 1995-6, 2009-10, 2010-1, and 2020-1.

 Being that this autumn has been in a persistent very active sunspot period after the peak only about a year ago, 2025-6 will still be during a mainly active sunspot period. As we get out to 2028-9 and going into the early 2030s, we should then be within ~2 years of the next cycle min. Therefore, based on the last 45 winters and assuming that pattern continues, ~2028-9 should be the next winter with a good shot at a sub -0.25 NAO averaged out. Hopefully like was the case in the mid-1980s and 2009-1, we’ll get two -NAO winters between 2028-9 and ~2031-2. The caveat is that this recent decades pattern of -NAOs during only weak sunspot periods has been due to randomness.

The season will average positive....that is a given, but I do think that we will see negative month.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, snowman19 said:

The AMO never went negative this summer. More ridiculous hype and clickbait for subscription money from those clowns. Nice New Foundland warm pool too, which is actually supportive of -NAO’s linking up with the WAR/SE ridge

@donsutherland1

This again reflects a big issue with social media. It’s a “Wild West” where anyone can play meteorologist, put out forecasts, and make claims about data. Verification is non-existent. Links to the data aren’t provided. Hype gains attention. Credible sources are drowned out.

[tacoman25]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The season will average positive....that is a given, but I do think that we will see negative month.

I feel like there is a bit too much focus on the NAO anyway...the EPO is a significantly larger factor for driving cold into the CONUS and generating widespread snowfall.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, tacoman25 said:

I feel like there is a bit too much focus on the NAO anyway...the EPO is a significantly larger factor for driving cold into the CONUS and generating widespread snowfall.

Agreed....I was just saying.

[jm1220]

-NAO blocking does us no good and can actually hurt if we get a steep SE ridge that links with it. That’s happened several times the last few winters. It can also keep everything suppressed to hell if we have a fast Pacific jet. 

[brooklynwx99]

10 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

-NAO blocking does us no good and can actually hurt if we get a steep SE ridge that links with it. That’s happened several times the last few winters. It can also keep everything suppressed to hell if we have a fast Pacific jet. 

you seem a bit traumatized, dude. -NAO blocking has been in place for pretty much all of NYC's largest storms. to say that Greenland blocking is not beneficial is untrue

[George001]

6 hours ago, MJO812 said:

Their winter forecast is similiar to others on social media in regards to this winter. Weak La Nina , alot of snow cover up north and a greater chance of a negative NAO.

 

The only thing I disagree with here is the negative NAO. Our big -NAO years like 09-10 and 10-11 were near the solar minimum. We are descending, but solar activity is still a lot higher than it was during those years. I would lean towards more of a neutral to slightly positive NAO. The more important factor is the fall pattern, we have diverged from the bone dry fall pattern that continued into the winter. We saw a mid fall shift from an extended dry stretch (leading to drought conditions), and it has shifted to a stormy pattern with frequent coastals. 

This combined with the other factors mentioned has me very optimistic about this upcoming winter for New England, even if the negative NAO idea doesn’t pan out. When I think of a big snow pattern the first thing I think of is NOT a Greenland block, it’s a tall ridge over Montana. 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

8 minutes ago, George001 said:

The only thing I disagree with here is the negative NAO. Our big -NAO years like 09-10 and 10-11 were near the solar minimum. We are descending, but solar activity is still a lot higher than it was during those years. I would lean towards more of a neutral to slightly positive NAO. The more important factor is the fall pattern, we have diverged from the bone dry fall pattern that continued into the winter. We saw a mid fall shift from an extended dry stretch (leading to drought conditions), and it has shifted to a stormy pattern with frequent coastals. 

This combined with the other factors mentioned has me very optimistic about this upcoming winter for New England, even if the negative NAO idea doesn’t pan out. When I think of a big snow pattern the first thing I think of is NOT a Greenland block, it’s a tall ridge over Montana. 

 

 

Agree.

The -NAO is more situational up here whereas it's an internal part of any winter storm to the south. It depends on the pattern whether we need it....if you have a trough going negative in the midwest, you bet you a$$ you want it.

[jaxjagman]

On 10/23/2025 at 9:44 AM, GaWx said:

 It’s highly likely that the IOD is now near its lowest of this cycle per climo. Met. autumn is by far the season when they dip the furthest in a cycle.

 This is the link to NOAA monthly IODs back to 1870 (I think I got this from snowman):

https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/dmi.had.long.data

  Looking back to 1950, these were when the lowest cyclical monthly lows (<-0.7) were hit:

7/2016, 10/1998, 10/1996, 6/1992, 6/1989, 9/1981, 8/1980, 10/1975, 10/1974, 9/1973, 9/1971, 9/1968, 10/1964, 10/1960, 8/1959, 9/1958, 7/1956, 9/1955, 7/1954

Analysis:

-# months since 1950 with these minimums: Sept and Oct each had 6 followed by July with 3, and June and August each with 2. So, all were June-Oct. So, IOD tends to dip to lows ~3 months earlier than ENSO dips.

-With no sub -0.7 cyclical low since 1950 in Nov, it would be very surprising if the IOD didn’t rise substantially next month.

-Sub -0.7 months have been much less common since 1998 as overall average IODs have risen substantially

-Positive IOD months used to be pretty rare but since 2006, 60% have been positive. Since 2017, 70% have been positive!

-1870-1899 had 6% positive, 1900-1924 had 4%, 1925-49 had 8%. There were positives in 12% of months during the 1950s. 28% during the 1960s, and 33% during the 1970s. There was a temporary drop back to 23% during the 1980s. Then positives rose to 37% during the 1990s, 43% during the 2000s, 59% during the 2010s, and 60% during 2020-4.

 

 Does anyone know why the average IOD has risen so much since the early 1900s and continues to rise?

Yeah but you have to read what the author wrote bro,hes talking about from 2008-present and gives a date Sept29 through Oct 5,hes actually right,hes just talking about a certain period to his credit

[GaWx]

8 minutes ago, jaxjagman said:

Yeah but you have to read what the author wrote bro,hes talking about from 2008-present and gives a date Sept29 through Oct 5,hes actually right,hes just talking about a certain period to his credit

Yeah, I realize that. I’m just looking ahead.

[donsutherland1]

10 hours ago, snowman19 said:

The AMO never went negative this summer. More ridiculous hype and clickbait for subscription money from those clowns. Nice New Foundland warm pool too, which is actually supportive of -NAO’s linking up with the WAR/SE ridge

@donsutherland1

As some people seem to think it's not a big issue that they made incorrect claims, here's the AMO for the 2025 through September for all to see.

2025      1      0.98
2025      2      0.86
2025      3      0.75
2025      4      0.67
2025      5      0.73
2025      6      0.78
2025      7      0.87
2025      8      0.86
2025      9      0.76

What those who dismiss the dissemination of bad claims don't understand is that there is a big difference between forecasting (no one has a crystal ball) and making incorrect claims about objective  verifiable data.

Just because most of the social media readers might not ever seek to verify the claims and many may have no idea where the data resides, does not make such claims appropriate. If anything, because those pushing the false claims no that such claims won't be challenged, it makes such claims particularly unethical.

Tragically, as anyone can play "meteorologist" on social media without any accountability, there's a lot of bad information being pushed into the public space. Yet, unless meteorologists speak out against such practices, the profession winds up being tarnished by the public perceptions created by misleading data, unfulfilled hype, etc.

 

[FPizz]

25 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

As some people seem to think it's not a big issue that they made incorrect claims, here's the AMO for the 2025 through September for all to see.

2025      1      0.98
2025      2      0.86
2025      3      0.75
2025      4      0.67
2025      5      0.73
2025      6      0.78
2025      7      0.87
2025      8      0.86
2025      9      0.76

What those who dismiss the dissemination of bad claims don't understand is that there is a big difference between forecasting (no one has a crystal ball) and making incorrect claims about objective  verifiable data.

Just because most of the social media readers might not ever seek to verify the claims and many may have no idea where the data resides, does not make such claims appropriate. If anything, because those pushing the false claims no that such claims won't be challenged, it makes such claims particularly unethical.

Tragically, as anyone can play "meteorologist" on social media without any accountability, there's a lot of bad information being pushed into the public space. Yet, unless meteorologists speak out against such practices, the profession winds up being tarnished by the public perceptions created by misleading data, unfulfilled hype, etc.

 

Its like that with everything on every subject.  Pick who you want to follow.  If people want to follow accounts with wrong info, so be it. Eventually with being wrong, people will stop following.  You seem to let it bother you.  No need to lecture us here.  Who here is posting useless garbage?  I dont really read it here unless one of you guys bring it up for some reason.   Not sure why these people are even brought up. You guys bring their crap into a perfectly fine thread here.

[GaWx]

30 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Its like that with everything on every subject.  Pick who you want to follow.  If people want to follow accounts with wrong info, so be it. Eventually with being wrong, people will stop following.  You seem to let it bother you.  No need to lecture us here.  Who here is posting useless garbage?  I dont really read it here unless one of you guys bring it up for some reason.   Not sure why these people are even brought up. You guys bring their crap into a perfectly fine thread here.

 As someone else who also hates the spread of misinfo, especially when it is done purposefully to overhype/get more attention and sell more of a product, I fully endorse his post about this error about the AMO. Spreading misinfo on the internet is a pet peeve of mine. We’re in the Age of Misinfo, sadly.  It’s the least we can do to try to reduce the spread of it.
 
 Even unintentional errors should be corrected.

 Keep in mind that there are numerous less informed guests that read these threads. So, we’re not just targeting members in our attempt to make corrections.