2026-2027 El Nino

[snowman19]

[GaWx]

 Nino 3.4 SSTa levels have finally started rising during the last 2 days, a 0.2C increase. Often there’s a delayed response to strong -SOI levels as they usually don’t produce SST rises immediately (reminder: these are straight rather than relative but the point is the rise):

[GaWx]

It’s the 15th and still no March QBO has been released. What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on? It never has taken more than a few days into the new month to release it.

 

[snowman19]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

It’s the 15th and still no March QBO has been released. What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on? It never has taken more than a few days into the new month to release it.
 

 

@GaWx This is all I’ve seen so far:

 

 

 

 

And on a side note, this WWB is about to blow 1997 away…..

Paul Roundy: ”I'm really just highlighting that over the next couple of weeks, this signal will explode beyond anything we presently see in these indicators, because the wind stress accrued to the Pacific over the last several days is 50% more intense, in terms of wind stress at the ocean surface, than the comparable event in 1997.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GaWx]

 The EWs have cooled considerably for Apr 20-26 in the NE vs 5 days ago:

5 days ago: mild NE 

 

Today’s: cool NE

[raindancewx]

13 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I have a very low tolerance for people who can't disagree without hurling insults......talk about a tell-tale sign of feelings of inadequacy. Ball-busting sarcasm is one thing, but there is simply no place for calling anyone an idiot, or referring to their postulation as "idiotic". 

You are an idiot. The fact that it offends you just means you believe it. Presumably if I called you an pedophile you wouldn't be offended because you're not a pedophile. You spend these threads trashing ideas hiding behind idiotic premises of "bull busting" so no one can call your behavior. Its an excuse to criticize what you don't like and then when someone dares criticize you you hiss and moan like a little baby and run to the mods. You dish and refuse to take.

You never actually learn anything. Here are all the Super that don't "self destruct" which has been the entire premise of your theory this entire thread out of the left side of your mouth, while on the right side you hem and haw about how it won't be a super event anyway. Literally half of the ENSOs at/over +2.0C haven't self-destructed, so yes it is an idiotic idea that could be disprove with five seconds of thinking, which you don't do. Anything that has a 50/50 tendency is not a tendency.

1957-58 became 1958-59 after hitting +2.0C. 1965-66 became 1966-67, 1991-92 became 1992-93 - none of those are La Ninas. 1997-98, 1982-83, 1972-73, 2015-2016 arguably became La Nina but even those are kind of bullshit La Nina since 1983-84 and 2016-17 were extremely warm by South America and below the surface. So the entire premise...is at best 50/50 which is again...stupid as a baseline for forecasting.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 hour ago, raindancewx said:

You are an idiot. The fact that it offends you just means you believe it. Presumably if I called you an pedophile you wouldn't be offended because you're not a pedophile. You spend these threads trashing ideas hiding behind idiotic premises of "bull busting" so no one can call your behavior. Its an excuse to criticize what you don't like and then when someone dares criticize you you hiss and moan like a little baby and run to the mods. You dish and refuse to take.

You never actually learn anything. Here are all the Super that don't "self destruct" which has been the entire premise of your theory this entire thread out of the left side of your mouth, while on the right side you hem and haw about how it won't be a super event anyway. Literally half of the ENSOs at/over +2.0C haven't self-destructed, so yes it is an idiotic idea that could be disprove with five seconds of thinking, which you don't do. Anything that has a 50/50 tendency is not a tendency.

1957-58 became 1958-59 after hitting +2.0C. 1965-66 became 1966-67, 1991-92 became 1992-93 - none of those are La Ninas. 1997-98, 1982-83, 1972-73, 2015-2016 arguably became La Nina but even those are kind of bullshit La Nina since 1983-84 and 2016-17 were extremely warm by South America and below the surface. So the entire premise...is at best 50/50 which is again...stupid as a baseline for forecasting.

I'm not offended. I'm proud of my work over the last decade plus...learned a ton. I'm just tired of your loathsome, vile persona acting as though you're superior to everyone and always spewing venom.

When in the hell did I run to the mods? I know as a byproduct of your incredibly meager existence you repeatedly made baseless claims of me plagiarizing your work....I called that out, but I don't recall ever getting mods involved. That accusation is every bit as accurate is your idiotic claim about the "smiley" snowfall pattern leading to another shitty east coast winter. Of course, you never acknowledged that. 

Okay, cool...you found a couple of exceptions ....of course, within this context the sample size is no longer an issue, and those examples can be used to completely debunks my assertion because it's convenient. "The sample size" crap is so fraudulent when you aren't consistent with it. 

Like I said, put your money where your keyboard is and take the bet, if I'm such an idiot. 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

I don't "use it to forecast". It's just something I have noticed about the strongest of events. I love how 1983 and 2016 are qualified as BS when in fact they were officially designated as La Niña....that is BS. 1966-1967 sure as hell seems cool-neutral to me........1957 and 1991, sure....I'll grant that. Must be a sample size issue

I don't think I used any offensive language in my response to Chuck.....if he feels as though I did, by all means, let me know. At least to me, employing sarcasm is different than using incendiary terms like "idiot".