2026-2027 Record-breaking El Nino

[GaWx]

42 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 The MJO continues to avoid the Maritime C and IO like no other time on record:

And here’s the 2 week fcast below. Does anyone know why the MJO is avoiding the IO & MC?

I looked at the other 16 Ninos since 76/7 and found only two others only somewhat similar in JAS:

2015: still had good # in IO

 

1994: still had large # in MC

[LakePaste25]

Just now, GaWx said:

And here’s the 2 week fcast below. Does anyone know why the MJO is avoiding the IO & MC?

I looked at the other 16 Ninos since 76/7 and found only two others somewhat similar:

2015:

 

1994:

The MJO isn’t “avoiding” the IO/MC, it’s being suppressed by the descending branch of the hadley cell triggered by the Nino standing wave whenever it enters that region. If you use VP and OLR plots you can still see the MJO pass thru those regions in a very suppressed state. On the RMM plot, El Niño is overwhelming the signal. 

[GaWx]

5 minutes ago, LakePaste25 said:

The MJO isn’t “avoiding” the IO/MC, it’s being suppressed by the descending branch of the hadley cell triggered by the Nino standing wave whenever it enters that region. If you use VP and OLR plots you can still see the MJO pass thru those regions in a very suppressed state. On the RMM plot, El Niño is overwhelming the signal. 

Why is it overwhelming the signal on RMM now but in 97-8 it was nearly opposite (majority in MC/IO)?

[LakePaste25]

11 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Why is it overwhelming the signal on RMM now but in 97-8 it was nearly opposite (majority in MC/IO)?

This event is more east-based than 1997. 1997 had convection far west in July in particular. 

 

 

[ensonerd1233e343]

6 hours ago, mitchnick said:

Eps, among other models, show a weakening of 850 anomalies as well as the renewal of trades breaking through in days to come; Gefs even more so.

mjo driven

[ensonerd1233e343]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

Probably a dumb question. These are often posted at a time frame thats at the end of a run.  How accurate is it vs what we see at the surface at the end of a run weather wise which we all know is like 2%? 

more accurate because its an el nino so if its showing green in the east central pac and brown in the io you can make a good bet that will happen

[GaWx]

8 hours ago, GaWx said:

3.4 peak still cooling!

That was an earlier update. Check out the latest: down to +2.9 peak/blues still lower than reds thru NDJ:

[mitchnick]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

That was an earlier update. Check out the latest: down to +2.9 peak/blues still lower than reds thru NDJ:

Enso 3.0 down too.

[GaWx]

6 minutes ago, mitchnick said:

Enso 3.0 down too.

1+2 also dropping:

[LakePaste25]

So it’s already initialized too low? Toss IMO. 

[GaWx]

17 minutes ago, LakePaste25 said:

So it’s already initialized too low? Toss IMO. 

Why do you say it’s initialized too low?

[jaxjagman]

6 hours ago, GaWx said:

1+2 also dropping:

Be kinda careful what the CFS is showing, the last several days its warmed down into the subsurface to around +10C around 55M,while yes 1+2  could mix out with any MJO moving across the WH,i dont think its gonna work out very well what the CfS is showing

[bluewave]

This El Niño continues to feature the ridge axis much further south than usual like we saw during the summer.

There have been dual ridges near Hudson Bay and the Southeast U.S this September.  

Perhaps the Southeast ridge maxing out at  a record 600dm for September this week is signaling more of a shift north for late September.

The trough along the West Coast and record rains in Southern California have been closer to past El Niño expectations during September.

Overpowering 500mb ridges have been a common recent theme regardless of ENSO state. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[A-L-E-K]

ready 4 that WAD life

[forkyfork]

16 hours ago, GaWx said:

1+2 also dropping:

do you really think it's going to immediately start falling

[GaWx]

10 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

do you really think it's going to immediately start falling

It was initialized at +4.6 for the full Sept averaged out. The mean then has +3.9 for Oct averaged out. There’s no requirement that the highly volatile 1+2 fall immediately for both of these to verify well.

 

[GaWx]

 The AAM yesterday finally for the first time this month exceeded an impressive +3 per the following image after several early Sep runs had had that occurring by Sep 7-8th. The delay is typical due to a + bias of the CFSv2.

 This is saying it will hit an extreme level of +4+ in only ~5 days (~Sep 19th), which is the earliest in its forecast that I’ve ever seen it reach it, and that it will stay +4+ at least through Sep 24th. I’ll keep following these graphs to see if that actually occurs:

[LakePaste25]

Further east and a much greater volume of warm water than 1997 with the 30C isotherm approaching 140W:

 

[GaWx]

 Today’s SOI is at ~-26. That’s the 33rd straight -SOI. The 30/90 day averages are at -17.5/-20.3:

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

 

[forkyfork]

37 minutes ago, GaWx said:

It was initialized at +4.6 for the full Sept averaged out. The mean then has +3.9 for Oct averaged out. There’s no requirement that the highly volatile 1+2 fall immediately for both of these to verify well.

 

yes there is

[GaWx]

 Today’s weekly relative update (which has been NOAA’s official way of measuring these for quite awhile now) for last week cooled in Nino 1+2 from +3.9 to +3.7 and in Nino 4 from +0.1 to -0.1. Meanwhile, Nino 3 warmed from +2.7 to +2.8 while Nino 3.4 warmed from +1.8 to +2.0:

 

02SEP2026         3.9        2.7        1.8        0.1
 09SEP2026         3.7        2.8        2.0       -0.1

 

 This is the comparable week in 1997:

10SEP1997         3.8        2.6        1.8        0.5

 This tells me that 2026 remains more E based than 1997 and was thus for another week the most E based on record for this time of year.

[LakePaste25]

56 minutes ago, GaWx said:

It was initialized at +4.6 for the full Sept averaged out. The mean then has +3.9 for Oct averaged out. There’s no requirement that the highly volatile 1+2 fall immediately for both of these to verify well.

 

To verify sure, there’s no requirement in how one gets there. It’s more about trusting the prognosis to begin with. 

Say it’s 100 in Atlanta. A model says starting tomorrow, we will see the forecast high drop 5 degrees every day for the next 6 days. So in a few days it’ll only get to 80 in Atlanta. 

It’s now tomorrow, and the high didn’t drop 5 degrees. It’s 99. Continue on to the next day, it’s 100 again. Why should I trust what the model is saying 3 weeks out when it’s making such a massive forecast error 2-5 days out? 

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, LakePaste25 said:

To verify sure, there’s no requirement in how one gets there. It’s more about trusting the prognosis to begin with. 

Say it’s 100 in Atlanta. A model says starting tomorrow, we will see the forecast high drop 5 degrees every day for the next 6 days. So in a few days it’ll only get to 80 in Atlanta. 

It’s now tomorrow, and the high didn’t drop 4 degrees. It’s 99. Continue on to the next day, it’s 100 again. Why should I trust what the model is saying 3 weeks out when it’s making such a massive forecast error 2-5 days out? 

 I and others have been posting what the model trend has been for later this autumn for the various Nino regions (clearly downward), but am not suggesting anyone “trust” what the CFSv2 (or any model for that matter) shows since model progs sometimes verify poorly. Regardless of model imperfections though, a good portion of this and other forecasting discussion threads typically centers around the trends of model output even though the output isn’t typically “trusted”. Models are very useful tools even though they’re not at all crystal balls and thus can bust badly.
 

 I’ve found over the many years that I’ve been following them that model prog trends are quite worthy of discussion since they often give good hints on what’s actually liable to occur down the road regardless of their imperfections.
 

 A good example of another current forecasting discussion thread that follows model trends is this one in the Mid-Atlantic forum that I and some others here also post in and which I recommend others check out:

[csnavywx]

No surprise the CFS is having problems here. It's been having issues maintaining the initialized thermocline slope for a while now -- hence the reason it continues to underforecast Nino 1+2. Some of that may be related to the model's native climo, and/or a bias towards reverting towards stronger easterlies. This is particularly important for a very strong, very east-based event.

[buckeye]

5 hours ago, A-L-E-K said:

ready 4 that WAD life

WAD > CAD

I'll take it

[bncho]

6 hours ago, GaWx said:

 I and others have been posting what the model trend has been for later this autumn for the various Nino regions (clearly downward), but am not suggesting anyone “trust” what the CFSv2 (or any model for that matter) shows since model progs sometimes verify poorly. Regardless of model imperfections though, a good portion of this and other forecasting discussion threads typically centers around the trends of model output even though the output isn’t typically “trusted”. Models are very useful tools even though they’re not at all crystal balls and thus can bust badly.
 

 I’ve found over the many years that I’ve been following them that model prog trends are quite worthy of discussion since they often give good hints on what’s actually liable to occur down the road regardless of their imperfections.
 

 A good example of another current forecasting discussion thread that follows model trends is this one in the Mid-Atlantic forum that I and some others here also post in and which I recommend others check out:

bro now it’s infected with forkyfork