Winter 2026-2027 Speculation

[Typhoon Tip]

10 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't think that is the issue...usually the blame arrow points towards the party speaking in absolutes, which is the "no winter" crowd...if you see anyone supremely confident in a great winter, please point them out to me. On the other hand, I see plenty hell-bent on a non-season, which is silly even considering the intensity of ENSO overlaid onto CC....that position inherently demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the complexity of the implications of CC. As an example....CC has tended to attenuate the influence of ENSO and has increased variability. Additionally, the poles are warming faster, which leaves us prone to shorter-term bouts of extreme blocking patters, which always bares watching given the magnitude of the STJ that is anticipated.

Obviously hand we are dealt is heavily weighted toward warmth IN THE MEAN, but in no way precludes all hell breaking lose over shorter intervals of time for the reasons discussed.

Well yeah there's that too.   Joe sets coffee down in the throws of some weird bi-polar pulse of gaiety firing off that morning, and the first thing he eats are "doomer" words of absolute dog turd ...    That's gonna result in the bell of round one.  haha

No but I was just musing along very general take on matters.  

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Well yeah there's that too.   Joe sets coffee down with some weird bi-polar pulse of gaiety firing off just eat some "doomers" absolute dog turd ...    that's the bell on round one.  haha

No but I was just musing along very general take on matters.  

Right...and that wasn't directed at you.....I know you are well aware of the perils of dismissing potential over shorter-term intervals out of deference to a longer-term mean.

[40/70 Benchmark]

32 minutes ago, SJonesWX said:

fixed

I was actually going to add a mid atl reference, too. haha The majority down there are great posters, but there are a select few that just make you want to make use of the idle snowblower and lie yourself down on the drive way.

[Typhoon Tip]

18 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Right...and that wasn't directed at you.....I know you are well aware of the perils of dismissing potential over shorter-term intervals out of deference to a longer-term mean.

Jokes aside, I do suspect there's something in the -PDO mode of the atmosphere over the N arc of the Pac Basin that may parlay.   Not certain on that... no  It's just an 'intuitive arithmetic' of having the -PDO ... correlating -EPO, then vying over top a canonical ENSO driven STJ.   The N. Pac is that "hangover" concept we were discussing back whenever that was?  I don't keep apprised of the indexes weekly however.  I just glance at the scalars.

I see the models tussling already.   I think that behavior matters - they are physically processing and so whatever their logistical biases are can mean one of two aspects:  

a,  they are picking up on something in the atmospheric forcing spectrum; 

b, they are just wrong.  

The latter concern is ameliorated some by fact that all the models are doing this ( more what that is in a moment).  They don't all have the identical physical equations built into their processing - though principally the same.  So that means whatever is triggering persisting biases either way, it's likely something real in the background.

Obviously this is all very experimental -

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Jokes aside, I do suspect there's something in the -PDO mode of the atmosphere over the N arc of the Pac Basin that may parlay.   Not certain on that... no  It's just a intuitive arithmetic of having -PDO/-EPO vying over top a canonical ENSO driven STJ.   The N. Pac is that "hangover" concept we were discussing back whenever that was?  I don't keep apprised of the indexes weekly however.  I just glance at the scalars.

I see the models tussling already.   I think that behavior matters - they are physically processing and so whatever their logistical biases are can mean one of two aspects:  

a,  they are picking up on something in the atmospheric forcing spectrum; 

b, they are just wrong.  

The latter concern is ameliorated some by fact that all the models are doing this ( more what that is in a moment).  They don't all have the identical physical equations built into their processing - though principally the same.  So that means whatever is triggering persisting biases either way, it's likely something real in the background.

Obviously this is all very experimental -

I'm a bit torn on how the disconnect between the PDO and ENSO may go.....I see some indicate that it could force a colder outcome in the east, but that definitely didn't work out in 2023. I see how it could weaken the GOA low, thus reducing the proclivity for +EPO/strong Pac jet, but I also see that adding an element of destructive interference via elevated se heights....I tend to place greater emphasis on the latter, but perhaps we are especially prone to severe bouts of winter when said SE heights relative to expectation relax.

[40/70 Benchmark]

12 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm a bit torn on how the disconnect between the PDO and ENSO may go.....I see some indicate that it could force a colder outcome in the east, but that definitely didn't work out in 2023. I see how it could weaken the GOA low, thus reducing the proclivity for +EPO/strong Pac jet, but I also see that adding an element of destructive interference via elevated se heights....I tend to place greater emphasis on the latter, but perhaps we are especially prone to severe bouts of winter when said SE heights relative to expectation relax.

Another possibility I am toying with is having more of a supply of cold readily available to the CONUS relative to the east-based intense Nino composite AND having the STJ displaced N & W relative to said composite...which could be great for us, especially across the interior.

[Typhoon Tip]

28 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I'm a bit torn on how the disconnect between the PDO and ENSO may go.....I see some it could forcer a colder outcome in the east, but that definitely didn't work out in 2023. I see how it could weaken the GOA, thus reducing the proclivity for +EPO/strong Pac jet, but I also see that adding an element of destructive interference via elevated se heights....I tend to place greater emphasis on the latter, but perhaps we are especially prone to severe bouts of winter when said SE heights relative to expectation relax.

No disagreement ... it's a low probability return. sure.    

The tussle I meant to expand upon is that as this fledgling season is coming in, there is increasing modeled injects off the NE Pac of these -2 SD polar anomalies. They're rocketing along the interface of a vast southern geopotential positive anomaly.  Whenever they do, that S/W moves from MT to NS in about a coffee break. Really fast. These -2 waves may in fact expose a suppressed -PDO type exertion - a sort of "non-linear"/invisible lingering -PDOness.   heh.  somethin like that... So early on, the conflict may be brewing. 

I hear you about 2023 but I thought of 2023 as not a real El Nino frankly.  Yeah, it met the criteria of course in the traditional scope and scale.  Of course.  But even in a RONI reprocessing, RONI isn't perfect either...  My thing is that the Earth system was still in the throws really of registering that giant spring burst in thermal recovery that took place.  It superseded the ENSO onset - and was also ... ( I feel strongly ) wrongly attributed to being because of the onsetting El NINO... but it was the wrong epistemic direction.   Because the former happened first!   we can go around and around with that... but the point is, there were concurrent massive signals and it'll take a lot more necessary math and science in order to figure out what was really proxy on that ensuing winter.  I think having a whole planet warm a half degree C (fun trivia:  ~ equivalent to 250 times the yield of the world's nuclear arsenal detonated at once.  If we include the jump in the ocean to that calculation, it's thousands of time greater, btw -) needs to unequivocally explained before believing the ENSO that year was proxy over something with enough energy to holocaust the planet 250 times over.

I dunno, but now years on that warm burst is hypothetically, fully 'absorbed' and accounted for in the ongoing machinery of the ID CGT ( Intradecadal circum-global teleconnector)...yet, we are left with a -PDO suggestion that should not be there given this scope of ENSO.   These are compelling concepts for me anyway-

Or not.. could all turn out to be nothin. But in the balance... teetering one way or the other comes down to unbalanced forcing.