2026-2027 Super El Nino

[GaWx]

6 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

I just saw this

Apparently it was verified by the WMO

 

“In 2020, the town of Verkhoyansk, Russia, reached a temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic Circle.”

https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/2026/06/20/On-This-Day-Arctic-Circle-reaches-record-setting-100-degrees/2481781913298/

[Stormchaserchuck1]

3 minutes ago, GaWx said:

“In 2020, the town of Verkhoyansk, Russia, reached a temperature of 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic Circle.”

https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/2026/06/20/On-This-Day-Arctic-Circle-reaches-record-setting-100-degrees/2481781913298/

Oh, I thought it was recent. My mistake. Facebook things posted out of context. I assumed the record cold >80N was creating a ridge underneath. The cold this year up there is certainly impressive!

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 hours ago, LakePaste25 said:

Enso longtidue index. It’s a fairly new index that’s used to calculate the longitude in the tropical pacific (between 5N and 5S) where it’s most supportive of deep tropical convection regardless of actual SSTA. Threshold for deep tropical convection is dynamic year-year as it incorporates mean tropics SST. 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL079203

There’s actually a page that calculates past events with it: 

https://ggweather.com/enso/eli.htm

Looks like they assign the 97-98 event as the highest (note that the 220 peak is the same as 140W). 

How do you equate that?

[GaWx]

39 minutes ago, Stormchaserchuck1 said:

Oh, I thought it was recent. My mistake. Facebook things posted out of context. I assumed the record cold >80N was creating a ridge underneath. The cold this year up there is certainly impressive!

Indeed!

 Yeah, Chuck, it’s confusing because when I searched for it, I first found the new FB post, dated 7/2/26. At first it looked on the surface like a new record/first time over 100 in Arctic Circle based on the 1st 2 paragraphs. But then the 3rd paragraph said that on June 20, 2020, it hit 38C/100.4F. Then I was curious to see the comments below. The first one incorrectly said that was Antarctica lol. Then the 2nd comment said that it was 6 years ago and was critical of the story being posted now for no good reason other than to confuse.

[40/70 Benchmark]

I'm not crazy about that ELI ....they state that it does a pretty poor job of identifying Modoki events and it absolutely does....it has 2023 similar to 2009 and 2004. It lost me right there. 

Two issues...first of all, the 165-170E Modoki range is too restrictive, which is likely why Modoki events are underrepresented in the data set. Secondly, it fails to distinguish the MC forcing of 2023 from Modoki forcing, which makes it no better than VP and OLR. I still like using the RONI for that distinction. 

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm not crazy about that ELI ....they state that it does a pretty poor job of identifying Modoki events and it absolutely does....it has 2023 similar to 2009 and 2004. It lost me right there. 

Two issues...first of all, the 165-170E Modoki range is too restrictive, which is likely why Modoki events are underrepresented in the data set. Secondly, it fails to distinguish the MC forcing of 2023 from Modoki forcing, which makes it no better than VP and OLR. I still like using the RONI for that distinction. 

Based on my own look just now at the comparison of anomalies in the 4 Nino regions, I have only 4 clearcut Modoki El Niño events since 1950:

1. 1968-9:

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov………-0.1……+0.1….+0.5…+0.4

Dec………+0.2….+0.4….+0.7….+0.6

Jan………-0.2……+0.5…..+1.0….+0.9

Feb……..-0.8…….+0.3…..+1.1…….+1.1

Mar……..+0.3……+0.2……+0.5.…+0.6

2. 1977-8: not as Modoki as 68-9

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……….-0.5…..+0.2….+0.5…+0.3

Dec……….-0.6…..+0.3….+0.7….+0.4

Jan……….-0.4…..+0.1…..+0.6…..+0.4

Feb……….-0.4…...0.0……+0.3…..+0.2

Mar……….-1.2……-0.5…..-0.2…..-0.1

3. 2004-5: the most Modoki

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……...+0.7…..+0.6…+0.7….+0.8

Dec……..+0.4……+0.7….+0.7….+0.9

Jan……...0.0……..+0.3…..+0.7….+0.9

Feb……..-0.9…….-0.1…….+0.4…..+0.7

Mar……..-1.5…….-0.1…….+0.5……+0.6

 

4. 2014-5: 2nd most Modoki

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……….+0.8….+0.8…+0.8…+0.7

Dec………+0.4….+0.7…+0.7….+0.8

Jan………-0.2…..+0.4…+0.5….+0.8

Feb……..-0.5…..+0.1….+0.4….+0.9

Mar…….+0.1…..+0.1….+0.5…..+0.9

 

 So, based on the above, the most Modoki (W based) El Niño events since 1950 were (starting from strongest):

1. 2004-5

2. 2014-5

3. 1968-9

4. 1977-8

 

 Based on this, it appears to me that regarding wintry precip in El Niño seasons, the SE (based on ATL and RDU) seems to do somewhat better with C based (3.4 with clearly the warmest anomalies) than Modoki/W based. If I’m not mistaken, the NE tends to do better with W based (Modoki) over C based. Please correct me if that’s wrong. Interesting!
 

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.91-20.ascii

 

[bluewave]

The forecast record breaking 600 DM ridge next week in the Upper Midwest is yet another pattern since May that doesn’t fit the typical developing record super El Niño playbook.

 

 

[snowman19]

Massive -SOI turnaround since March. 30 day down to -25. Today’s number is over -44



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 hours ago, GaWx said:

Based on my own look just now at the comparison of anomalies in the 4 Nino regions, I have only 4 clearcut Modoki El Niño events since 1950:

1. 1968-9:

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov………-0.1……+0.1….+0.5…+0.4

Dec………+0.2….+0.4….+0.7….+0.6

Jan………-0.2……+0.5…..+1.0….+0.9

Feb……..-0.8…….+0.3…..+1.1…….+1.1

Mar……..+0.3……+0.2……+0.5.…+0.6

2. 1977-8: not as Modoki as 68-9

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……….-0.5…..+0.2….+0.5…+0.3

Dec……….-0.6…..+0.3….+0.7….+0.4

Jan……….-0.4…..+0.1…..+0.6…..+0.4

Feb……….-0.4…...0.0……+0.3…..+0.2

Mar……….-1.2……-0.5…..-0.2…..-0.1

3. 2004-5: the most Modoki

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……...+0.7…..+0.6…+0.7….+0.8

Dec……..+0.4……+0.7….+0.7….+0.9

Jan……...0.0……..+0.3…..+0.7….+0.9

Feb……..-0.9…….-0.1…….+0.4…..+0.7

Mar……..-1.5…….-0.1…….+0.5……+0.6

 

4. 2014-5: 2nd most Modoki

Month……..1+2……3……3.4……4

Nov……….+0.8….+0.8…+0.8…+0.7

Dec………+0.4….+0.7…+0.7….+0.8

Jan………-0.2…..+0.4…+0.5….+0.8

Feb……..-0.5…..+0.1….+0.4….+0.9

Mar…….+0.1…..+0.1….+0.5…..+0.9

 

 So, based on the above, the most Modoki (W based) El Niño events since 1950 were (starting from strongest):

1. 2004-5

2. 2014-5

3. 1968-9

4. 1977-8

 

 Based on this, it appears to me that regarding wintry precip in El Niño seasons, the SE (based on ATL and RDU) seems to do somewhat better with C based (3.4 with clearly the warmest anomalies) than Modoki/W based. If I’m not mistaken, the NE tends to do better with W based (Modoki) over C based. Please correct me if that’s wrong. Interesting!
 

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst5.nino.mth.91-20.ascii

 

That is correct.

My Modoki events since 1950  are: 1958-1959, 1968-1969, 1977-1978, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2009-2010 and 2014-2015.

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, GaWx said:

Indeed!

 Yeah, Chuck, it’s confusing because when I searched for it, I first found the new FB post, dated 7/2/26. At first it looked on the surface like a new record/first time over 100 in Arctic Circle based on the 1st 2 paragraphs. But then the 3rd paragraph said that on June 20, 2020, it hit 38C/100.4F. Then I was curious to see the comments below. The first one incorrectly said that was Antarctica lol. Then the 2nd comment said that it was 6 years ago and was critical of the story being posted now for no good reason other than to confuse.

And the WMO validated it in December 2021. 

https://wmo.int/media/news/wmo-recognizes-new-arctic-temperature-record-of-380c

[Typhoon Tip]

7 hours ago, GaWx said:

Indeed!

 Yeah, Chuck, it’s confusing because when I searched for it, I first found the new FB post, dated 7/2/26. At first it looked on the surface like a new record/first time over 100 in Arctic Circle based on the 1st 2 paragraphs. But then the 3rd paragraph said that on June 20, 2020, it hit 38C/100.4F. Then I was curious to see the comments below. The first one incorrectly said that was Antarctica lol. Then the 2nd comment said that it was 6 years ago and was critical of the story being posted now for no good reason other than to confuse.

Zucker-douchery leveraging that - it's by design.  Heh, to him ... the whole world's a bunch of "zuckers"

Time for a crank op ed:  It keeps their constituency engaged. Obviously, a major component of that success has to be time.  Any amount of time is good for their product ... So, they pimp the "new" post and the recency date because like all sociopathic captains of industry, they can hide in the equivocation - partial truth.   - a lie basically. And thus... keeps the thumbs swipin' 

Social media's evolved so much faster than any kind of public trust laws can keep up, the whole thing is morally insolvent, and 0 trustworthy.    You know ... in an indirectly related topic, these AI agencies are claiming this is why Claude or Gemini or OpenAI or whichever... sometimes hallucinate?  It's because they are fed information whereupon the hallucinations of the "idiocracy".  Idiot in, idiot out.  I kind of like that.  

Imho, AI is just Google on steroids from what I can tell.  You can find the same answers whether in research endeavors and/or use to assist in creative ventures, just as well with Google or Duck-Duck-Go...etc, but what these AI agencies have created is familiar happy-place delivery dressing.  A rudimentary simulacra that delivers kind of like a crude "Data" (Star Trek: Next Generation).  But look out, "we don't know how it works" - that oughta capture the attention of humanity! They claim it's a self-evolving a sort of primitive albeit virtual nuero-nodal network - which sounds like Data talking, huh. Haha. But I guess one that's analogous to a brain as I think was cited on 60-Minutes or Joe Rogan or whatever.  Anyway, they're just accessing all of the web and then this "brain" is using probability to winnow down to the most likely correct answer.  Unfortunately, that filtering down does make the probability zero that some fucktard's BS doesn't get through. So these hallucinations are just Joe Farmer from the back-40's reasoning.