2026-2027 Record-breaking El Nino

[GaWx]

28 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, there weren’t any cold winters in the East with super El Niños relative to the climatology at the time. 
 

 

 Chris,

 The following is a better way to look at how 1997-8 did:

using the more appropriate/well centered climo base of 1981-2010 instead of 1961-90, which is earlier than 1997-8. Using the earlier, colder 1961-90 makes 1997-8 anomalies ~1F warmer than they actually were in many areas as you know vs the available best centered climo of 1981-2010: still mild in NE but not as mild and SE NN:

[George001]

8 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

This will not be a cold winter ( definitely the first half )  we have to see how fast the EL nino weakens.

Yeah it will be warm. The question is more the magnitude of the warmth as that will make a big difference in terms of how much of the precip is wet vs white. There is a big difference between say +2 AN and +5-6 AN. 

[Terpeast]

I think it’s almost a given that the east coast winter will not be a cold one. For the MA, I’m thinking 2-4 AN vs 1991-2010 climo, warmer north and a bit cooler south.

STJ will be very active, launching one storm after another across the south. If we can time even marginal cold air with one of them, we could score big. Most of them will probably be rainstorms.

[bluewave]

25 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Chris,

 The following is a better way to look at how 1997-8 did:

using the more appropriate/well centered climo base of 1981-2010 instead of 1961-90, which is earlier than 1997-8. Using the earlier, colder 1961-90 makes 1997-8 anomalies ~1F warmer than they actually were in many areas as you know vs the available best centered climo of 1981-2010: still mild in NE but not as mild and SE NN:

The climatology period for the 1997-1998 super El Nino was 1961-1990. They don’t have 1941-1970 climatology maps on that site for 1972-1973. There also isn’t an 1951-1980 option for 1982-1983. So I used the closest time period that they offered at the site. 

[GaWx]

23 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The climatology period for the 1997-1998 super El Nino was 1961-1990. They don’t have 1941-1970 climatology maps on that site for 1972-1973. There also isn’t an 1951-1980 option for 1982-1983. So I used the closest time period that they offered at the site.

 I fully realize that the 30 year climo period available during 1997-8, just like at the time for any winter, always has to end prior to that winter for obvious reasons. There’s no choice.
 
 But once one gets further into the future, a more appropriate 30 year period to use as a basis for the analysis of anomalies for any winter is imho the 30 years most centered on that winter. Otherwise, in a warming climate using a 30 year period that’s prior to that winter is always going to bias that winter to look warmer than it really was vs the best centered 30 year climo.

 So, I strongly disagree with you on this and I’ll leave it at that. I don’t expect for you to agree with my thinking here. That’s fine as there’s nothing wrong with that. These are solid debates, which I enjoy, rather than them being arguments/throwing cheap shots.

[bluewave]

28 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 I fully realize that the 30 year climo period available during 1997-8, just like at the time for any winter, always has to end prior to that winter for obvious reasons. There’s no choice.
 
 But once one gets further into the future, a more appropriate 30 year period to use as a basis for the analysis of anomalies for any winter is imho the 30 years most centered on that winter. Otherwise, in a warming climate using a 30 year period that’s prior to that winter is always going to bias that winter to look warmer than it really was vs the best centered 30 year climo.

 So, I strongly disagree with you on this and I’ll leave it at that. We disagree and I don’t expect for you to agree with my thinking on this. That’s fine as there’s nothing wrong with that. These are solid debates, which I enjoy, rather than them being arguments/throwing cheap shots.

I am not sure there is need strong disagreement between us since the climate period keeps updating every 10 years. So each super El Niño at the time was based on the most recent prior 30 year period ending at the start of each new decade.

I just checked the 30 year climatology from 1941-1970 in NYC and it didn’t change during 1961-1990 for the winters.

Ultimately, it’s the rankings based on the entire climatology period which are the closest to reality.

They probably should just have left the departures fixed at 1951-1980 which was our last stable temperature period before the warming accelerated.

But since model forecasts use departures based on 1991-2020 this decade, we use them. I include rankings as often as possible since updating every 10 years in a rapidly warming climate masks the increase by normalizing the new much higher temperatures.

So an average temperature month during the 2020s would have been would have been a warm month based on older more fixed climatology. 

[annunciated]

Looks to me we will have another WWB in a week or so. The ECMWF suite, AIFS especially, has been pretty consistent on this signal for a few days now.

[GaWx]

5 minutes ago, bluewave said:

They probably should just have left the departures fixed at 1951-1980 which was our last stable temperature period before the warming accelerated.

I strongly disagree. 1951-80 has not been relevant base climo for anomalies for a very long time. Normals are supposed to reflect the most up to date available climo. We’re obviously in a notably warmer climate than that of 1951-80. That earlier colder climate is no longer relevant for determining normals.

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

How can anyone take the seasonal models at face value for the winter which is 4-6 months away when the May forecast for this June and July only 1-2 months out had such significant errors? 

This is another example of the models not having much skill beyond the 15 day period.

Notice how the ridges in the mid-latitudes verified much stronger leading to the strong -PDO +AMO pattern. 

The forecasts were going for a general Nino 3.4 correlation which didn’t work out. So it looks like the models are just defaulting to Nino 3.4 climatology for June and July.

Back in 2023-2024 the winter forecasts also defaulted to general Nino 3.4 correlations with the ridges verifying much stronger and the troughs weaker. 

 

Forecasts from around May 1st

June Forecasts

June correlation for Nino 3.4

 

 

June verification

July forecasts 

July correlation Nino 3.4

July verification

 

Where is the July verification composite from, the JMA site?

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

Yeah, I will always point out that the coldest winter CONUS in the 21st century was during a strong la nina. Strong/super el ninos generally mean warmth, but not always.

It's too early to tell whether this upcoming winter is going to be warm, but if the models are still showing a cold signal in September, then people need to accept that it will probably be colder (and possibly snowier) winter.

No...it's not. It will be above average.

[40/70 Benchmark]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

Perhaps you lack understanding of my posts and the weather patterns in general is related to your stated disinterest beyond your backyard.

Maybe if you broaden out your horizons a bit to encompass the greater climate system your frustration will begin to decline.

I know you like the CanSIPS since you post it all the time. So you get triggered when people point out that it’s not a very good model.
 

 

CANSIPS actually did well last season, but I agree it's too biased towards the Modoki end of the spectrum this year....alomng with the JMA, IMHO.

[michsnowfreak]

43 minutes ago, bluewave said:

I am not sure there is need strong disagreement between us since the climate period keeps updating every 10 years. So each super El Niño at the time was based on the most recent prior 30 year period ending at the start of each new decade.

I just checked the 30 year climatology from 1941-1970 in NYC and it didn’t change during 1961-1990 for the winters.

Ultimately, it’s the rankings based on the entire climatology period which are the closest to reality.

They probably should just have left the departures fixed at 1951-1980 which was our last stable temperature period before the warming accelerated.

But since model forecasts use departures based on 1991-2020 this decade, we use them. I include rankings as often as possible since updating every 10 years in a rapidly warming climate masks the increase by normalizing the new much higher temperatures.

So an average temperature month during the 2020s would have been would have been a warm month based on older more fixed climatology. 

1951-80 stable? By stable you mean coldest because it had the abnormally cold 1960s and especially 1970s? The 1950s were way warmer than the 1970s, so i dont see how that's "stable". 

How about we just use 1931-60 normals.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

1951-80 stable? By stable you mean coldest because it had the abnormally cold 1960s and especially 1970s? The 1950s were way warmer than the 1970s, so i dont see how that's "stable". 

How about we just use 1931-60 normals.

I think he means "stable" within the context of the modern GW trend.

[michsnowfreak]

1 hour ago, George001 said:

Yeah it will be warm. The question is more the magnitude of the warmth as that will make a big difference in terms of how much of the precip is wet vs white. There is a big difference between say +2 AN and +5-6 AN. 

People always focus on a total anamoly too much as well, warm or cold. Do you know how long a winter season is and how many fronts, systems, etc will be occurring during the season? Even if someone nailed a forecast seasonal anamoly, theres no way to tell whats going to happen with the actual weather. 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

8 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

No...it's not. It will be above average.

I'd say favored, but not a guarantee. There have been cold/snowy winters in robust el ninos. 2009-10 finishing as the coldest winter CONUS so far in the 21st century is one example. Also, 1957-58 was a historically cold and snowy winter in many places in the Eastern US.

[40/70 Benchmark]

2 minutes ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

I'd say favored, but not a guarantee. There have been cold/snowy winters in robust el ninos. 2009-10 finishing as the coldest winter CONUS so far in the 21st century is one example. Also, 1957-58 was a historically cold and snowy winter in many places in the Eastern US.

2009 was a pure Modoki season and was much weaker in magnitude. 1957 was basin-wide, but it was focused pretty far west and was barely a super-event. Forget 2009, but I guess 1957 is about as cold as one could expect, which was around normal.

[GaWx]

On 7/31/2026 at 11:59 AM, GaWx said:

 Darwin’s pressure has averaged 1015+ mb, a high pressure for there, for 22 straight days! That’s a new record (back to 1991) that breaks the old record of 20 days that was set during another developing super Nino, July of 2015. I’m expecting that streak to finally end tomorrow.

I was wrong as the Darwin 1015+ mb streak is still going! It’s now up to 24 days and tomorrow looks to also be 1015+. That would make it 25 straight days vs the prior longest of 20 days from July of 2015.

[EasternLI]

1 hour ago, annunciated said:

Looks to me we will have another WWB in a week or so. The ECMWF suite, AIFS especially, has been pretty consistent on this signal for a few days now.

Yes, and it's looking like a big one too as the MJO swings back through again.

[GaWx]

On 7/31/2026 at 9:24 AM, GaWx said:

 2. This brings us to 82 straight days of -SOI. Going back to when records are readily available (since 1991), this is second only to the 100 days of 1998! It’s too early to tell whether or not the current streak will reach 100 days.

  Today’s SOI rose to ~-8, the highest in a month, from ~-22 yesterday due to a sharp increase in pressure at Tahiti. However, Tahiti has most likely about peaked and it will be falling back noticeably within the next few days. Meanwhile, Darwin’s pressure looks to be higher tomorrow than today. Thus, I’m expecting another -SOI tomorrow, which would make it 85 straight -SOI days vs the record back to 1991 of 100 (set in 1998).
 

 Darwin should peak tomorrow followed by a drop for 2-3 days. But with Tahiti’s concurrent fall during that period, I’m thinking the -SOI streak will likely continue for at least the next few days and likely make it to at least 90 days.

[Cobalt]

4 hours ago, qg_omega said:

We have the strongest east based Nino on record, it’s going to be an historic warm winter.  This is not difficult

You've done this for every winter. Nino, Nina, doesn't matter, you call for record warmth. Your multiple calls for a record warm winter in the East for 2024-25 and 2025-26 (easily accessible receipts) failed miserably. Neither you nor snowman19 should be patting yourselves on the back for being on the record warm train this winter when everything points towards it. It's like predicting that Shaq will miss a free throw and then being impressed with your clairvoyance when it happens. 

[mitchnick]

19 minutes ago, EasternLI said:

Yes, and it's looking like a big one too as the MJO swings back through again.

Cfs2 has been hitting hard in October for a while. Considering how far away we are from October, it might be the biggest yet if correct. But is that signaling the big finale?  Idk. Just wondering based on an apparent November forecast peak.

[MarcmmKU]

3 hours ago, George001 said:

Yeah it will be warm. The question is more the magnitude of the warmth as that will make a big difference in terms of how much of the precip is wet vs white. There is a big difference between say +2 AN and +5-6 AN. 

Worth nothing that if you get far enough north and or high enough in elevation in new england the correlation between cold and snow becomes almost nil. The climo there is cold enough that a 5-6 F + winter does not meaningfully affect snow odds. If you plot snowfall versus temp for a place like Stowe VT it will essentially be a random scatterplot with no correlation. 

[EasternLI]

5 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Cfs2 has been hitting hard in October for a while. Considering how far away we are from October, it might be the biggest yet if correct. But is that signaling the big finale?  Idk. Just wondering based on an apparent November forecast peak.

That's quite impressive looking too! I'm not quite sure what to expect with this thing other than a powerhouse STJ. It's unprecedented in many ways. I'm having fun just monitoring it. Tons of interesting aspects. Really fascinating event.

[annunciated]

1 minute ago, EasternLI said:

That's quite impressive looking too! I'm not quite sure what to expect with this thing other than a powerhouse STJ. It's unprecedented in many ways. I'm having fun just monitoring it. Tons of interesting aspects. Really fascinating event.

Good thing NA is on the verge of its cooling-off phase here in the troposphere; it'll be good to see the STJ start to go in a month or two as that temp. gradient becomes apparent

[annunciated]

16 minutes ago, MarcmmKU said:

Worth nothing that if you get far enough north and or high enough in elevation in new england the correlation between cold and snow becomes almost nil. The climo there is cold enough that a 5-6 F + winter does not meaningfully affect snow odds. If you plot snowfall versus temp for a place like Stowe VT it will essentially be a random scatterplot with no correlation. 

At that point further north, you're essentially trading cold(er) air for potential improvements in moisture, if perhaps a greater risk for ice. In my opinion, that could cancel out the warmth's detrimental effects if not add to the snow total average if you can get a good background pattern instead of the polar jet constantly lagging back into Canada.

[mitchnick]

9 minutes ago, EasternLI said:

That's quite impressive looking too! I'm not quite sure what to expect with this thing other than a powerhouse STJ. It's unprecedented in many ways. I'm having fun just monitoring it. Tons of interesting aspects. Really fascinating event.

Yet, and this may have already been mentioned, most modeling shows the upcoming MJO having an affinity for the Maritime Continent. 

https://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/mjo_phase.html

[ensonerd1233e343]

4 hours ago, PhiEaglesfan712 said:

Yeah, I will always point out that the coldest winter CONUS in the 21st century was during a strong la nina. Strong/super el ninos generally mean warmth, but not always.

It's too early to tell whether this upcoming winter is going to be warm, but if the models are still showing a cold signal in September, then people need to accept that it will probably be colder (and possibly snowier) winter.

Um yea no seasonal models are bad  the last 2 winters should be exhibit a,  im as much of a weenie as the next guy but im not holding my breath next winter for sustained cold and snow ( here in the mid atl) although there is certainly an increased chance of a big storm w a mega juiced stj, but cold? highly unlikely maybe feb will be cold and thats it 

[bluewave]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

I strongly disagree. 1951-80 has not been relevant base climo for anomalies for a very long time. Normals are supposed to reflect the most up to date available climo. We’re obviously in a notably warmer climate than that of 1951-80. That earlier colder climate is no longer relevant for determining normals.

NASA GISS uses 1951-1980 for its departures with Canada going with 1961-1990. Berkeley Earth uses the 1850-1900 period along with Copernicus and the Met Office.

1951-1980 was the last relatively stable temperature regime before emissions and temperatures really took off.

So using warmer 1991-2020 climate normals masks the warming relative to the past. 
 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/world-of-change/global-temperatures/

The NASA GISS team chose the period of 1951-1980 as its baseline largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort also began around 1980, so the most recent 30-year period was 1951-1980. Their objective is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/climate-trends-variability/trends-variations.html

Much of Canadian economic and social activity is climate dependent. Understanding how Canada’s climate is changing, in the context of global climate change, is important for developing adaptive responses. The Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin (CTVB) helps communicate to Canadians how Canada's climate has changed  over the recent past and longer, over the period for which Environment Canada has climate observations.

The CTVB describes climate variability through maps of current and past departures from the mean (the 30-year average 1961-1990) temperature and precipitation conditions, both seasonally and annually. This approach provides visualization of the extent to which temperature and precipitation vary above and below longer term average conditions. Maps are presented for each season and year. The data are then analyzed to see if there are detectable trends of longer terms against this backdrop of climate variability for Canada as a whole, and for 11 climate regions. This information is presented as graphs with trend lines to assess climate change over the period of record, starting in 1948 when nation-wide records became available.

Winter National Temperature Departures and Long-term Trend, 1948–2025

 

 

[GaWx]

 The longer range model consensus is suggesting the possibility of a very long MJO phase 6 streak later this month, the 2nd this year possibly reaching 14+ days, and with a likely max magnitude of 2+.

 

Longest MJO ph. 6: # days; max mag

7/28-8/18/1984: 22; 2.5;

7/15-8/4/1996: 21; 2.0; 

10/13-31/2022: 19; 2.2

6/13-30/1984: 18; 2.0;

1/5-21/2026: 17; 2.7

11/16-12/1/1998: 16; 2.5

10/6-20/1988: 15; 3.0

7/19-8/1/2018: 14; 2.5

2/25-3/10/1997: 14; 3.6

 

 

 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

NASA GISS uses 1951-1980 for its departures with Canada going with 1961-1990. Berkeley Earth uses the 1850-1900 period along with Copernicus and the Met Office.

1951-1980 was the last relatively stable temperature regime before emissions and temperatures really took off.

So using warmer 1991-2020 climate normals masks the warming relative to the past. 
 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/world-of-change/global-temperatures/

The NASA GISS team chose the period of 1951-1980 as its baseline largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort also began around 1980, so the most recent 30-year period was 1951-1980. Their objective is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/climate-trends-variability/trends-variations.html

Much of Canadian economic and social activity is climate dependent. Understanding how Canada’s climate is changing, in the context of global climate change, is important for developing adaptive responses. The Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin (CTVB) helps communicate to Canadians how Canada's climate has changed  over the recent past and longer, over the period for which Environment Canada has climate observations.

The CTVB describes climate variability through maps of current and past departures from the mean (the 30-year average 1961-1990) temperature and precipitation conditions, both seasonally and annually. This approach provides visualization of the extent to which temperature and precipitation vary above and below longer term average conditions. Maps are presented for each season and year. The data are then analyzed to see if there are detectable trends of longer terms against this backdrop of climate variability for Canada as a whole, and for 11 climate regions. This information is presented as graphs with trend lines to assess climate change over the period of record, starting in 1948 when nation-wide records became available.

 

Winter National Temperature Departures and Long-term Trend, 1948–2025

 

 

 This isn’t about measuring GW. This is about using the most appropriate 30 year period to determine what normals are. Due to GW, normals have increased a couple of degrees over the last few decades as you know. Thus, 1951-80 has been outdated for decades to use to determine normals, which are always changing.