El Nino is Dead. Long Live La Nina.

[Phil]

Yeah, look at the aggregated NCDC/ESRL data..1889 flipped to -PNA/-AAM (cool) in August.

[Phil]

To summarize the above^

 

1889 flipped in August.

[TT-SEA]

To summarize the above^

 

 

What I reported is what actually happened.   You are showing some vague low resolution map based on sparse data from 1889 and lumping 3 months together.  

 

Side note... July was very warm and dry by even our standards today.     Total rain of 0.00 in Portland and only 4 days below 80.      And 8 days in the 90s.    July of 1889 would have been despised by the cold weather fans on here.

 

Average high in July 1889 was 84... average last July was 86 and that was one hot month.    

[Phil]

What I reported is what actually happened. You are showing some vague low resolution map based on sparse data from 1889 and lumping 3 months together.

The NCDC/ESRL maps contain 100x the amount of data and much more in the way of quality control than your method of randomly selecting a few stations without accounting for external factors/regional variances.

 

Side note... July was very warm and dry by even our standards today. Not a drop of rain in Portland and only 4 days below 80. And 8 days in the 90s. July of 1889 would have been despised by the cold weather fans on here.

Out of curiosity, are you looking at the raw data or the homogenized data? If it's the former, what you're doing is pointless.

[TT-SEA]

The NCDC/ESRL maps contain 100x the amount of data and much more in the way of quality control than your method of randomly selecting a few stations without accounting for external factors/regional variances.

 

 

Out of curiosity, are you looking at the raw data or the homogenized data? If it's the former, what you're doing is pointless.

 

 

Here is July of 1889.    This is what actually happened.  Not a cold month in our area.   And no measureable rain either.

 

http://s31.postimg.org/ehese8pay/Untitled.jpg

[Jesse]

What I reported is what actually happened. You are showing some vague low resolution map based on sparse data from 1889 and lumping 3 months together.

 

Side note... July was very warm and dry by even our standards today. Total rain of 0.00 in Portland and only 4 days below 80. And 8 days in the 90s. July of 1889 would have been despised by the cold weather fans on here.

 

Average high in July 1889 was 84... average last July was 86 and that was one hot month.

Where does your belief that July 1889 would have been "despised by cold weather fans" fit in at all with a fact based discussion? Do you literally just look at months you think Jim and I wouldn't like and then base whether or not you might enjoy them off of that? Freak...

[Jesse]

Tim's like: "Sure August and September 1889 were cooler than anything we have seen so far this century, but they had some spells of sesonably warm weather I'm just certain Jim and Jesse would hate, so they are fine by me!"

 

Glad we are keeping things in the realm of fact!

[Phil]

Here is July of 1889. This is what actually happened. Not a cold month in our area. And no measureable rain either.

 

http://s31.postimg.org/ehese8pay/Untitled.jpg

I see a blank image. Can you link me to the site/data you're using?

[TT-SEA]

Where does your belief that July 1889 would have been "despised by cold weather fans" fit in at all with a fact based discussion? Do you literally just look at months you think Jim and I wouldn't like and then base whether or not you might enjoy them off of that? Freak...

 

 

First of all... you do the exact same thing all the time except the other way!   Tim would hate this or that... blah blah blah   

 

I was trying to make the point to Phil that July of 1889 was warm.   We both would have really liked August of 1889.    My enjoyment is not always exclusive of your enjoyment.  

 

http://s31.postimg.org/sxgyv3g62/Untitled2.jpg

[TT-SEA]

I see a blank image. Can you link me to the site/data you're using?

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00024274/detail

[Jesse]

I see a blank image. Can you link me to the site/data you're using?

July 1889 had an average temp of 70.4 in Downtown Portland. A warm month followed by a much cooler August/September. Something I could definitely see playing out this year.

[TT-SEA]

And September of 1889...

 

http://s31.postimg.org/6xa9pbt7e/Untitled3.jpg

[TT-SEA]

Like I said... I really think 1889 might be a good guide for 2016.

 

Strong Nino transitioned to Nina by summer and was at the very end of solar cycle with very low solar activity... all just like 2016 it seems.    Really the only year since the 1870s that matches those basic criteria.

 

I also think 2016 will be warmer than 1889 because the climate has warmed in the last 127 years.

[GHweatherChris]

Hot through August at least!!

[Phil]

July 1889 had an average temp of 70.4 in Downtown Portland. A warm month followed by a much cooler August/September. Something I could definitely see playing out this year.

Yeah I'm thinking the transition in the background state occurs sometime in July, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if if occurs earlier. The rapid/widespread cooling in the EPAC wasn't observed in 1998/1889 et al. This should act to bump forcing westward.

 

La Niña is developing at a faster pace now than it did in 1889, 1983, 1998, and 2010, objectively speaking.

[Phil]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00024274/detail

That's the raw GHCN data.

[snow_wizard]

July 1889 had an average temp of 70.4 in Downtown Portland. A warm month followed by a much cooler August/September. Something I could definitely see playing out this year.

 

I would give my next few paychecks to have a season play out like 1889-90.

[Dan the Weatherman]

I would give my next few paychecks to have a season play out like 1889-90.

 

I wouldn't mind a repeat of 1889-90, either, as it was one of the wettest winters on record for Los Angeles, and the rainfall distribution had similarities to 2010-11, especially in the fall and early winter months. From looking at SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) data, both 1889-90 and 2010-11 had multiple months of SOI indices averaging in the +20's, the only two La Nina events that I know of that featured that consistently high of a SOI.

 

2010-11 brought nearly 20" of rain to Los Angeles and was a banner snow year for the Sierra, and was the last great year before this terrible drought pattern set in. This "super El Nino" year has brought barely half of the amount of rain to L.A. that 2010-11 did.

[snow_wizard]

I wouldn't mind a repeat of 1889-90, either, as it was one of the wettest winters on record for Los Angeles, and the rainfall distribution had similarities to 2010-11, especially in the fall and early winter months. From looking at SOI (Southern Oscillation Index) data, both 1889-90 and 2010-11 had multiple months of SOI indices averaging in the +20's, the only two La Nina events that I know of that featured that consistently high of a SOI.

 

2010-11 brought nearly 20" of rain to Los Angeles and was a banner snow year for the Sierra, and was the last great year before this terrible drought pattern set in. This "super El Nino" year has brought barely half of the amount of rain to L.A. that 2010-11 did.

 

Ninas with a suppressed jet are great for cold in the NW and rain in your area.  I hope we see something like that next winter.

[Phil]

Ninas with a suppressed jet are great for cold in the NW and rain in your area. I hope we see something like that next winter.

I'm not sold on significant blocking next winter, and am leaning towards a 98-99/07-08/11-12 look (-PNA/+EPO/+NAM) overall, with the potential for a brief/potent midwinter -NAM/Arctic blast somewhere, followed by a relatively quick return to the background pattern.

[Deweydog]

I read 1889 was also a great year for foot stomping, salted meats and hoop and stick.

[TT-SEA]

I read 1889 was also a great year for foot stomping, salted meats and hoop and stick.

 

Party like its 1889!

[TT-SEA]

Yeah I'm thinking the transition in the background state occurs sometime in July, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if if occurs earlier. The rapid/widespread cooling in the EPAC wasn't observed in 1998/1889 et al. This should act to bump forcing westward.

 

La Niña is developing at a faster pace now than it did in 1889, 1983, 1998, and 2010, objectively speaking.

 

 

By the way... its hard to imagine we are going much faster than 1889.   Technically we are still at a Nino and its almost May 1st.

 

Looking at the MEI... the 1889 Nino was still strong in March/April but was completely gone by the May/June reading and was a moderate Nina by July/August.  

 

That is a very rapid transition.

[weatherfan2012]

I'm not sold on significant blocking next winter, and am leaning towards a 98-99/07-08/11-12 look (-PNA/+EPO/+NAM) overall, with the potential for a brief/potent midwinter -NAM/Arctic blast somewhere, followed by a relatively quick return to the background pattern.

the following winter 2017-2018 should be a much better blocking -nam type winter with a positive qbo likey in place with a possable moderate La nina still in place then.things start to get interesting as we end this decade and go into the 2020s as we really start getting into our on coming solar minimum.how the winters and weather patterns behave in the 2020s and beowed has alot to do with how cycles 25 and 26 play out and how severe of a solar minimum this turns out being.

[Phil]

By the way... its hard to imagine we are going much faster than 1889. Technically we are still at a Nino and its almost May 1st.

 

Looking at the MEI... the 1889 Nino was still strong in March/April but was completely gone by the May/June reading and was a moderate Nina by July/August.

 

That is a very rapid transition.

 

What source are you using for MEI back in 1889? I don't know of any peer reviewed MEI dataset going back that far.

 

The M/J/J trimonthly ONI was clearly positive, and the MEI lags the ONI to a slight degree. So something is wrong with this picture. The ONI didn't go negative until later in June 1889.

[TT-SEA]

 

What source are you using for MEI back in 1889? I don't know of any peer reviewed MEI dataset going back that far.

 

The M/J/J trimonthly ONI was clearly positive, and the MEI lags the ONI to a slight degree. So something is wrong with this picture. The ONI didn't go negative until later in June 1889.

 

 

Here...

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html

 

Probably as good as anything else from 1889.    Not going to have any truly reliable data other than daily highs and lows and precip.

 

1889 was a rapid transition from a strong Nino to a strong Nina... we know that much.     And it was at the very end of a solar cycle with very low solar.    

[Phil]

Here...

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html

 

Probably as good as anything else from 1889. Not going to have any truly reliable data other than daily highs and lows and precip.

 

1889 was a rapid transition from a strong Nino to a strong Nina... we know that much. And it was at the very end of a solar cycle with very low solar.

Assuming the above (extrapolated from the original Hadley data) is correct in terms of timing, it fits the ONI transition that occurred in June of 1889, suggesting that low frequency (background) forcing probably went negative during the middle of the summer of 1889.

 

The global circulations responded sharply towards the end of July, 1889 hence the cooler than average August/September in your region. So, again, yet another analog supporting the idea of a midsummer transition to a cooler pattern.

 

As for the MEI data, it's funny because that link was on the same page I get my ONI data from. It's just gathered/gridded differently.

[TT-SEA]

Assuming the above (extrapolated from the original Hadley data) is correct in terms of timing, it fits the ONI transition that occurred in June of 1889, suggesting that low frequency (background) forcing probably went negative during the middle of the summer of 1889.

 

The global circulations responded sharply towards the end of July, 1889 hence the cooler than average August/September in your region. So, again, yet another analog supporting the idea of a midsummer transition to a cooler pattern.

 

As for the MEI data, it's funny because that link was on the same page I get my ONI data from. It's just gathered/gridded differently.

 

 

Yes... it is a good analog.   Probably the best one.

 

And I suspect it will be warmer in 2016 locally compared to 1889 thanks to 127 years of climate warming.  But like Jim echoed... I would love to follow that year and the full year Nina of 1890.

 

Perfect weather from April - October in 1889... very snowy January... and then amazingly another warm and sunny spring in 1890 and a perfect summer with almost no rain from June - October.   That is with a Nina in place all year.

[James Jones]

Yes... it is a good analog.   Probably the best one.

 

And I suspect it will be warmer in 2016 locally compared to 1889 thanks to 127 years of climate warming.  But like Jim echoed... I would love to follow that year and the full year Nina of 1890.

 

Perfect weather from April - October in 1889... awesome Janaury... and then amazingly another warm and sunny spring in 1890 and a perfect summer with almost no rain from June - October in 1890.

The warming climate point is a good one, I think you guys have been overlooking how much cooler our Summer climate used to be when you talk about these older analogs. For example, here's Downtown Portland's average summer highs from 1875 to 1904 (first 30 years of the station existing), with PDX's 1981-2010 averages in parentheses:

 

June: 71.6 (73.5)

 

July: 77.6 (80.6)

 

August: 77.4 (81.1)

 

September: 71.1 (75.8)

 

So while August and September 1889 in Portland look very cool by modern standards, it wasn't cool at all for the standards of the late 19th century. August 1889 had an average high just a tick below average and September was +2.3 on the average highs of the late 19th Century.

[TT-SEA]

The warming climate point is a good one, I think you guys have been overlooking how much cooler our Summer climate used to be when you talk about these older analogs. For example, here's Downtown Portland's average summer highs from 1875 to 1904 (first 30 years of the station existing), with PDX's 1981-2010 averages in parentheses:

 

June: 71.6 (73.5)

 

July: 77.6 (80.6)

 

August: 77.4 (81.1)

 

September: 71.1 (75.8)

 

So while August and September 1889 in Portland look very cool by modern standards, it wasn't cool at all for the standards of the late 19th century. August 1889 had an average high just a tick below average and September was +2.3 on the average highs of the late 19th Century.

 

 

Agreed.

 

What stands out to me is that 1889 was obviously a very dry and sunny warm season from April - October.   You can tell that by the wide temperature ranges on most days.     I am not concerned at all about being 1 degree below normal or 1 degree above normal compared to the 1981-2010 average.  If it is that dry and sunny in 2016... then it will be a great summer and fall.   And likely noticeably warmer than 1889 with all things being equal.

[snow_wizard]

The warming climate point is a good one, I think you guys have been overlooking how much cooler our Summer climate used to be when you talk about these older analogs. For example, here's Downtown Portland's average summer highs from 1875 to 1904 (first 30 years of the station existing), with PDX's 1981-2010 averages in parentheses:

 

June: 71.6 (73.5)

 

July: 77.6 (80.6)

 

August: 77.4 (81.1)

 

September: 71.1 (75.8)

 

So while August and September 1889 in Portland look very cool by modern standards, it wasn't cool at all for the standards of the late 19th century. August 1889 had an average high just a tick below average and September was +2.3 on the average highs of the late 19th Century.

 

I think we will see a return to cooler summers.  Maybe not to pre 1958 levels, but it should cool some.

[Jesse]

The warming climate point is a good one, I think you guys have been overlooking how much cooler our Summer climate used to be when you talk about these older analogs. For example, here's Downtown Portland's average summer highs from 1875 to 1904 (first 30 years of the station existing), with PDX's 1981-2010 averages in parentheses:

 

June: 71.6 (73.5)

 

July: 77.6 (80.6)

 

August: 77.4 (81.1)

 

September: 71.1 (75.8)

 

So while August and September 1889 in Portland look very cool by modern standards, it wasn't cool at all for the standards of the late 19th century. August 1889 had an average high just a tick below average and September was +2.3 on the average highs of the late 19th Century.

Hopefully we will all live to see our summers return to their glory days.

[Phil]

Yes... it is a good analog. Probably the best one.

 

And I suspect it will be warmer in 2016 locally compared to 1889 thanks to 127 years of climate warming. But like Jim echoed... I would love to follow that year and the full year Nina of 1890.

You can eliminate that issue by using an 1879-1900 baseline relative to observations in 1889. Still flipped colder than average in your region during the second half of summer using that baseline.

 

Either way, the climate warming you're referring to isn't enough to make a statistically significant difference in locally derived temperatures in analogous patterns on seasonal/subseasonal scales.

 

Perfect weather from April - October in 1889... very snowy January... and then amazingly another warm and sunny spring in 1890 and a perfect summer with almost no rain from June - October. That is with a Nina in place all year.

What's kinda funny is you've consistently mocked Jim for hyping old analogs from the 1800s. Now, the tables have turned and you're relying on a single analog from that era to justify your wishcast, because there are no viable modern day analogs to your liking (1998 isn't a viable analog at this point).

[Phil]

The warming climate point is a good one, I think you guys have been overlooking how much cooler our Summer climate used to be when you talk about these older analogs. For example, here's Downtown Portland's average summer highs from 1875 to 1904 (first 30 years of the station existing), with PDX's 1981-2010 averages in parentheses:

 

June: 71.6 (73.5)

 

July: 77.6 (80.6)

 

August: 77.4 (81.1)

 

September: 71.1 (75.8)

 

So while August and September 1889 in Portland look very cool by modern standards, it wasn't cool at all for the standards of the late 19th century. August 1889 had an average high just a tick below average and September was +2.3 on the average highs of the late 19th Century.

Just adjust the baseline. Still was a cooler than average J/A/S aggregate.

[TT-SEA]

What's kinda funny is you've consistently mocked Jim for hyping old analogs from the 1800s. Now, the tables have turned and you're relying on a single analog from that era to justify your wishcast, because there are no viable modern day analogs to your liking (1998 isn't a viable analog at this point).

 

Jim and I both love the 1889-90 analog.   So its not really tables turned.

 

There are really just 5 years to pick from if we are going from a strong Nino to a strong Nina and doing it rather quickly.

 

1889

1942

1973

1988

1998

 

The best solar match of these is 1889... by far.

 

Not sure what else to say.     We also had a warm, dry spring in 1889 which is making it more of a match as 2016 reveals a rather warm, dry spring so far.   

 

I have said I would have enjoyed the JAS period in every one of those years.    I am not cherry picking 1889.   It also had the cooler August and September.    And would certainly be a winter that Jim would love.

 

If I was cherry picking a year to be jerk... why would I pick a year that Jim would pay money to repeat?       

 

I would give my next few paychecks to have a season play out like 1889-90.

 

 

Is the best ENSO / solar match.  That is always my starting point.   It is what it is. 

[Phil]

Jim and I both love the 1889-90 analog. So its not really tables turned.

 

There are really just 5 years to pick from if we are going from a strong Nino to a strong Nina and doing it rather quickly.

 

1889

1942

1973

1988

1998

 

The best solar match of these is 1889... by far.

There's no need to restrict your analog base to strong niño -> strong niña transitions. The antecedent ENSO/forcing state will represent neither during the boreal summer.

 

What you want to best capture, in my opinion, is the timing, structure, and rate of a given ENSO flip. So, you can set looser standards in terms of strength/etc.

 

Also, if you're going to factor in solar (nothing wrong with that) you'll need to factor in the QBO, too, as it's the major conduit through which solar forcing affects the troposphere.

 

Not sure what else to say. We also had a warm, dry spring in 1889 which is making it more of a match as 2016 reveals a rather warm, dry spring so far.

 

I have said I would have enjoyed the JAS period in every one of those years. I am not cherry picking 1889. It also had the cooler August and September. And would certainly be a winter that Jim would love.

 

If I was cherry picking a year to be jerk... why would I pick a year that Jim would pay money to repeat?

I was messing with you a bit. I don't think 1889 is a bad analog, but it's very, very old and a number of things have changed since then. So, personally, I'd want more than just one ancient year in my analog pool to feel confident. That's just me, though.

[Phil]

Latest update:

 

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.4.25.2016.gif

[Jesse]

Any new updates?

 

Can't wait for this warm period to get crushed.

[TT-SEA]

Any new updates?

 

Can't wait for this warm period to get crushed.

You are so strange.

[Jesse]

You are so strange.

We have differing opinions. Let it go. I like snow, crisp October days, cool summer evenings, sub-freezing highs, mid-April graupel showers and strong marine pushes. Haven't seen much of any of those in the last few years.

 

It's like missing old friends I grew up with.