Uhhh yea you can it’s called the other month before the next 5 day period maybe, initialization already shows low frequency -VP200 signal in the WP. Lol.
There has been no decipherable low frequency signal in the VP200 anomalies during the last 6 weeks. Can you show me otherwise?
There’s an intraseasonal wave responsible for the negative VP200 anomalies across the Indo-Pacific, but that’s opposite of the low frequency structure of developing Niños, which have positive VP200 anomalies there.
See our recent example cases for developing niños:
Versus modeling for the next 2 weeks:
It just so happens that the GEFS/CFSv2 have a prolific bias towards this WHEM convection (as I’m sure you’re aware of) and it’s in the nature of seasonal guidance to over-couple to projected SSTAs at the expense of intraseasonal variability (I’m sure you’re aware of that too).
Yes, forcing should propagate eastward into the VP200 EOF for developing niños, but that doesn’t mean it will magically stop propagating and stay there. No, it will continue propagating and recycle. How much residual convection remains
after the wave recycles is the question, IMO.
The CFSv2 abruptly shuts down the intraseasonal component, completely, over the span of 5 days, and keeps all anomalous convection locked in the EPAC/WHEM...that’s not going to happen
You seldom see a switch flip like that even during high amplitude ENSO events. You could argue 1997 pulled it off, but what was during the equinox in a transition into a canonical style super niño, lol.
U never claimed we had 0 draw from the warmpool you’re comments several days ago suggest otherwise, the fact that I had to convince u there was actually a downwelling KW in the CP should be your big clue but I’ll let you believe what u want
If that’s how it came off, I apologize for the misleading phrasing. That certainly wasn’t the message I was trying to convey (that somehow there was zero warm pool draw..that would be stupid since it’s impossible not to have warm pool draw in the presence of a downwelling OKW of any kind).
As for this regime flip globally you’re taking it way out of context nor do I think you know what I’m really arguing here (which is normal for us tbh lol and me included as I often take things the wrong way haha) It’s fine to believe that the seasonality in the ITCZ contributing to AMM behavior but the long term climatological behavior of the monsoon is already somewhat factored in, you are going to need another mechanism to significantly flip it to neutral or positive. If it stays negative then that really defeats the purpose of one of your pillars for a Niño head fake, a less negative but still negative AMM is conducive to Nino development, you’re gonna need to look elsewhere if that transpires.
Haha, maybe so. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Though I would vehemently argue that nothing in the climate system occurs in a vacuum..it’s all connected in one way or another. The AMM is no exception..a flip negative requires changes to large scale boundary conditions.
As for 2018, what I’m looking for re: AMM, is how much it recovers (if at all) during the next 6 months.
If the magnitude of the recovery (regardless of the sign of the index) is as large or larger than normal, that would indicate to me that boundary conditions are less favorable for a niño (which is what I expect).
If the AMM recovery is smaller, or (god forbid) nonexistent, then it would indicate a drastic reorganization of the climate system, a higher likelyhood of a niño, and probably a multidecadal shrinking of the IPWP, given the necessarily large amplitude of the trigger.