2026-2027 Super El Nino

[LakePaste25]

3 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

A +PDO coupled with a super Nino is just 97/98. A -PDO could cause deconstructive interference which makes the pattern much more variable. 

It interferes by *weakening* the SE trough and making it *even warmer* meanwhile a 97-98 type pattern increases the chances of a big snowstorm via the active southern stream. That winter came very close to multiple KUs that barely missed the cold air phase. 82-83/15-16 produced one and had +PDOs as well. 

In my several years of tracking weather it has always been preferable to have a +PDO and is backed up by evidence. “-PDO means less el niño so it’s snowier” is such a wrong way to view it. You *always* want a +PDO in the East, and hopefully it flips and we get that! 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think somewhere close to neutral PDO is the best scenario for a robust el nino. Strong/super el ninos have busted when the PDO was highly negative or highly positive. A near neutral PDO is the sweet spot (see 1965-66 and 2009-10).

[LakePaste25]

PDO correlation

+PDO = more troughing in the east. 97-98 would’ve been an extreme torch without the +PDO. 

 

[FPizz]

4 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Pretty obvious it wasn't going to be a Modoki from early on given the unusual off-equator WWBs and strength of the subsequent WWBs near the equator. It was catchable by late March-early April and dead easy call to make by late May.

I think he was taking people saying how it could become one too seriously, but he also must follow a bunch of weenies because I haven't really seen anyone with a degree say it only some hopeful hobbiests pondering about it.  

[csnavywx]

22 minutes ago, FPizz said:

I think he was taking people saying how it could become one too seriously, but he also must follow a bunch of weenies because I haven't really seen anyone with a degree say it only some hopeful hobbiests pondering about it.  

Twitter feeds some of these folks to me too (I assume algorithmic engagement bait doing its thing), but yeah, agree that most of them are hobbyists.

That said it's not totally hopeless if the forcing moves far enough east to sneak in some stuff late in the season. And we're kind of in a n=1 space if it comes to say, the warm pool making it to 120W (instead of 160-140W, heck it's *already* at 160).

[GaWx]

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

The amazing runs keep coming! The 12Z 8/2/26 CFSv2 has the strongest AAM for forecast days ~12-23 that I’ve seen/saved! The mean hits 3 on day 12, 3.5 on day 16, and 4 on day 17 or 18! There are 3 of 4 members at 4+ on day 19 or 20 through day 22! Afterward, it isn’t quite as impressive as the last run and the far right isn’t as impressive as the last 2 although it’s still very impressive:@snowman19

 

 Here’s still another amazingly strong CFS AAM run (about as strong as any overall), the 0Z August 3rd run (I’ve seen/posted 4 amazing runs in a row). Check out the complete agreement of members exceeding a very strong amp of 3 on Aug 13th/day 11 and an even stronger 3.5 on Aug 14th/day 12, as early as I’ve seen in any run! It being early is very important since these quickly become increasingly unreliable due largely to an increasing + bias once much past day 14. The key days for me to watch are in and near Aug 11-14 as of now:  @snowman19

[GaWx]

4 hours ago, snowman19 said:

I have no explanation. It makes no sense whatsoever when compared to the OISST RONI. The BOM and NOAA are and have been in complete disagreement. The BOM has the official weekly readings consistently much higher than NOAA’s

Hot off the press posted by a pro-met!

“It does seem strange/off, comparing the CRW and OISST products on cyclonicwx doesn't show that discrepancy.”

 He then copied this from a NOAA website:

“In the afternoon on Aug. 3rd, the ERSSTv5 will switch to ERSSTv6 because NCEI is discontinuing ERSSTv5. RONI values will change slightly. The weekly OISSTv2.1 data will remain unaffected.”

[OSUmetstud]

The main difference is that NOAAs RONI reduction is larger. The raw weekly anomaly is 2.3. They subtracted 0.8. 

[OSUmetstud]

Roundy mentioned some issues with this method that sort of make sense to me. Im paraphrasing of course but its like youre punishing the el nino thats partially responsible for the increase of SSTs in the 20S-N band in the first place. There may be better ways to normalize the agw signal in the calculation. 

[GaWx]

8 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

The main difference is that NOAAs RONI reduction is larger. The raw weekly anomaly is 2.3. They subtracted 0.8. 

 But why are they subtracting so much for the RONI deduction? It was only 0.44 for June ONI minus RONI. A sudden sharp increase from 0.44 to 0.8 is inconsistent with the size of month to month changes of the difference in the past.

[LakePaste25]

5 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Roundy mentioned some issues with this method that sort of make sense to me. Im paraphrasing of course but its like youre punishing the el nino thats partially responsible for the increase of SSTs in the 20S-N band in the first place. There may be better ways to normalize the agw signal in the calculation. 

To be fair, the ONI is actually being punished here because of how fast the W Pacific has been warming. So for the purposes of trying to determine the extent of suppressed convection in the MC/W Pac and enhanced convection near the dateline into the E pac, RONI seems to be useful here

[PhiEaglesfan712]

July 2026 PDO: -2.03

[GaWx]

 From that same pro-met, the strong support for a solid La Niña by next fall is there. This is just for ASO:

 If you look at RONI values that exceeded 1.0 in ASO, the higher end events almost always resulted in La Nina by the next year's ASO:
1957: 1.2 -> 0.2
1963: 1.0 -> -0.6
1965: 1.9 -> 0.0
1972: 1.7 -> -1.5
1982: 1.8 -> -0.6
1987: 1.5 -> -1.4
1994: 1.0 -> -0.7
1997: 2.3 -> -1.5
2002: 1.3 -> 0.2
2015: 1.9 -> -1.1
2023: 1.1 -> -0.8