2026-2027 Record-breaking El Nino

[40/70 Benchmark]

32 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Thanks, Ray. Indeed, that 9/21/26 graph has the only significant pocket of -AAM centered at our latitudes as you noted. However, I assume you realize that these lat. based graphs are quite fluid, and thus it could look quite different at our latitudes within just a few days for all anyone knows. Also, the extremely + tropical latitudes overall have little choice but to drop back at least some soon. I’ll try to follow these daily from this point on.

 Here’s the brand new update for 0Z on 9/22/26: note that the -AAM pocket at our latitudes is still there and still the most significant -AAM area but isn’t as negative. Also, although 52N-61N has dropped, 63N to 90N is significantly more positive vs yesterday with a peak of +2 SDs at 78N vs +1.3 yesterday:

Compare to yesterday’s:

 

 The corresponding global mean for 9/22/26 is as expected per prior days’ CFSv2 progs on its last legs of the extreme level of +4+ although it fwiw keeps a very strong +3+ mean on all but a few days in early Oct:

I get that it's fluid, as is everything.....but it's been a consistent theme.

Here is the graphic from a month ago:

 

The graphics are tools, not substitutes for critical thinking. We have a developing record El Nino abutting a decade of cool ENSO residue throughout the N HEM....this resistance makes sense, and is not the product of some short-term perturbation. Although it is true that forcing and gradients are comparatively weak in the summer relative to the cold season, there is no disputing that summer 2026 has diverged from the intense El Niño composite, which validates the disconnect between the tropical and mid latitude AAM data. The theme of this summer has been ridging and much above normal temperatures throughout much of the CONUS.

 

This is in stark contrast to the summer pattern preceding other intense El Niño events, which featured a prevailing trough and much cooler temps across much of the CONUS.

 

 

[GaWx]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I get that it's fluid, as is everything.....but it's been a consistent theme.

Here is the graphic from a month ago:

 

The graphics are tools, not substitutes for critical thinking. We have a developing record El Nino abutting a decade of cool ENSO residue throughout the N HEM....this resistance makes sense, and is not the product of some short-term perturbation. Although it is true that forcing and gradients are comparatively weak in the summer relative to the cold season, there is no disputing that summer 2026 has diverged from the intense El Niño composite, which validates the disconnect between the tropical and mid latitude AAM data. The theme of this summer has been ridging and much above normal temperatures throughout much of the CONUS.

 

This is in stark contrast to the summer pattern preceding other intense El Niño events, which featured a prevailing trough and much cooler temps across much of the CONUS.

 

 

Excellent post as a whopping ~90% of the daily graphs since July 1st have averaged a -AAM in the 30N to 40N corridor! The 40N to 50N corridor also has a very high % that are -AAM although not quite as high as the 90% especially due to the last few weeks.

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, George001 said:

This El Niño is absolutely a beast, on track to be the strongest on record. However, I am extremely skeptical of El Niño conditions lingering into next June. If it were a weak El Niño I would be more inclined to buy the 2nd year Nino idea, but I would think it’s much more likely it collapses into La Niña rather than going from a super to moderate-strong El Niño. 

It’s not so far-fetched when you consider a much weaker event in 1982-1983 lingered into June and July 1983.

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, George001 said:

This El Niño is absolutely a beast, on track to be the strongest on record. However, I am extremely skeptical of El Niño conditions lingering into next June. If it were a weak El Niño I would be more inclined to buy the 2nd year Nino idea, but I would think it’s much more likely it collapses into La Niña rather than going from a super to moderate-strong El Niño. 

 Whereas historical stats certainly agree that La Niña is quite possible in ‘27-‘28, that same history says that there’s actually a decent chance for either neutral or, believe it or not, even El Niño in ‘27-‘28. Here’s why:

 El Niños peaking at +1.4+ occurred in the following 19 fall/winters and were followed by these:

+1.4+ Nino: subsequent fall/winter ENSO

1877-8: cold neutral

1888-9: strong Nina

1896-7: cold neutral

1899-1900: warm neutral

1902-3: moderate Nina

1905-6: weak Nina

1918-9: weak Nino

1930-1: cold neutral

1940-1: moderate Nino

1957-8: weak Nino

1965-6: cold neutral

1972-3: strong Nina

1982-3: moderate Nina

1986-7: moderate Nino

1991-2: weak Nino

1997-8: strong Nina

2009-10: strong Nina

2015-6: moderate Nina

2023-4: moderate Nina

—————————

So, these 19 +1.4+ El Niños were followed by these:

Strong Niña: 4 (21%)

Moderate Nina: 4 (21%)

Weak Nina: 1 (5%)

Cold neutral: 4 (21%)

Warm neutral: 1 (5%)

Weak Nino: 3 (16%)

Moderate Nino: 2 (11%)

—————————

Tally:

47% Nina

26% neutral

26% El Nino

———————

 

Conclusion:

La Nina is the best single possibility for ‘27-‘28 due to its large plurality (being at 47%), but neutral or even El Niño are obviously each quite possible as the two of them, combined, actually occurred about as often as La Nina after these strongest 19 El Niños on record.

 

https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso/roni/

 

 

[GaWx]

 The latest CFSv2 RONI peak prog unlike for recent days doesn’t have most of the blue lines underneath most of the red lines. When it did, that predicted well the subsequent reductions in the progged peak, which came all the way down to +2.8 from +3.5 in late July. The current configuration is much more balanced and even has the average blue a little warmer than the avg. red. Thus, I don’t expect more drops in the progged peak over the next few days and there’s even a small chance for a slight bounce upward:

[LakePaste25]

23 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 The latest CFSv2 RONI peak prog unlike for recent days doesn’t have most of the blue lines underneath most of the red lines. When it did, that predicted well the subsequent reductions in the progged peak, which came all the way down to +2.8 from +3.5 in late July. The current configuration is much more balanced and even has the average blue a little warmer than the avg. red. Thus, I don’t expect more drops in the progged peak over the next few days and there’s even a small chance for a slight bounce upward:

I imagine this will go back up. RONI is already at +2.5 and while I am aware this is a daily index compared to a 3 month mean, it is only September and we likely have 2-3 more months until the peak. I am thinking the 3 month mean will be closer to 3-3.3

[Keith Central PA]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

It’s not so far-fetched when you consider a much weaker event in 1982-1983 lingered into June and July 1983.

1983 went into a moderate Nina in the fall...1998 it went into a strong nina in the Spring. Both had warmth continuing at 1-2 for a while.

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, LakePaste25 said:

I imagine this will go back up. RONI is already at +2.5 and while I am aware this is a daily index compared to a 3 month mean, it is only September and we likely have 2-3 more months until the peak. I am thinking the 3 month mean will be closer to 3-3.3

 This is tricky. Whereas cyclonicwx’s OISST graph has indeed had it at +2.5 for the past 10 days including last week, keep in mind that NOAA had it at only +2.1 for last week. Thus, NOAA had it 0.4 cooler than cyclonicwx’s OISST graph. Actually, NOAA has been cooler than cyclonicwx by 0.4 for 9 straight weeks! NOAA labels their weeklies as OISSTv2.1. Thus, I wonder if cyclonicwx uses an older version of OISST. If so, that could possibly explain the 0.4 difference for the last 9 weeks.

 Note that cyclonicwx in late June/early July was warmer by only 0.1. I wonder if the latest version of OISST started being used just after that.

 So, per NOAA, last week’s equivalent RONI (based on OISSTv2.1) was still only +2.1. So, with that being the case, there’s quite a ways to go to see if it actually does reach a +3.0 trimonthly peak per NOAA.

 

NOAA Weeklies:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/rel_wksst9120.txt

 

*Edit: I just found out that OISSTv2.1 was first implemented way back on 4/26/2020:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst

 So, it remains a mystery why cyclonicwx’s OISST graph has been 0.4 warmer than NOAA’s OISSTv2.1 based weeklies for 9 weeks! So, until NOAA’s weeklies get close to cyclonicwx (if they do), I’ll continue to treat cyclonicwx’s OISST graphs as too warm vs NOAA. The NOAA August’s +1.67, which is ERSSTv6 based, was even a little cooler than NOAA’s OISSTv2.1 based weeklies would have suggested! So, NOAA and cyclonicwx are world’s apart.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, Keith Central PA said:

1983 went into a moderate Nina in the fall...1998 it went into a strong nina in the Spring. Both had warmth continuing at 1-2 for a while.

One of reasons February 1983 had such a memorable snowstorm and 1998 didn’t was probably related to how east based 1998 was in February.

1982-1983 really didn’t become east based until after the winter was over. It was more full-basin in February compared to 1998.

 

[LakePaste25]

24 minutes ago, bluewave said:

One of reasons February 1983 had such a memorable snowstorm and 1998 didn’t was probably related to how east based 1998 was in February.

1982-1983 really didn’t become east based until after the winter was over. It was more full-basin in February compared to 1998.

 

Can really see the difference here:

 

Both had convection pretty far east, but 1983 was more concentrated just east of the dateline during February, while 1998 had more periods of Eastern Pacific forcing. 

[LakePaste25]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

 This is tricky. Whereas cyclonicwx’s OISST graph has indeed had it at +2.5 for the past 10 days including last week, keep in mind that NOAA had it at only +2.1 for last week. Thus, NOAA had it 0.4 cooler than cyclonicwx’s OISST graph. Actually, NOAA has been cooler than cyclonicwx by 0.4 for 9 straight weeks! NOAA labels their weeklies as OISSTv2.1. Thus, I wonder if cyclonicwx uses an older version of OISST. If so, that could possibly explain the 0.4 difference for the last 9 weeks.

 Note that cyclonicwx in late June/early July was warmer by only 0.1. I wonder if the latest version of OISST started being used just after that.

 So, per NOAA, last week’s equivalent RONI (based on OISSTv2.1) was still only +2.1. So, with that being the case, there’s quite a ways to go to see if it actually does reach a +3.0 trimonthly peak per NOAA.

 

NOAA Weeklies:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/rel_wksst9120.txt

 

*Edit: I just found out that OISSTv2.1 was first implemented way back on 4/26/2020:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/optimum-interpolation-sst

 So, it remains a mystery why cyclonicwx’s OISST graph has been 0.4 warmer than NOAA’s OISSTv2.1 based weeklies for 9 weeks! So, until NOAA’s weeklies get close to cyclonicwx (if they do), I’ll continue to treat cyclonicwx’s OISST graphs as too warm vs NOAA. The NOAA August’s +1.67, which is ERSSTv6 based, was even a little cooler than NOAA’s OISSTv2.1 based weeklies would have suggested! So, NOAA and cyclonicwx are world’s apart.

If CFS is going off how NOAA is calculating it, that model output makes more sense. Interesting to see the difference as Cyclonicwx’s is closer to Australian BOM’s RONI measurement. 

[michsnowfreak]

Feb 1998 actually had a huge snowstorm in southern OH and northern KY, but I dont think it was very widespread. Feb was the torchiest month of the 1997-98 winter while Dec was the torchiest month of the 1982-83 winter. Typically December is the warmest month in strong Ninos but 1997-98 proved that wrong.

I just cringe everytime you guys wish for 1983. Absolutely the worst strong Nino of them all here. Although certainly some bad luck played a factor.