Typical (Average) El Nino, Traditional El Nino, and El Nino Modoki Events
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Recently, there have been a number of posts around the blogosphere about the current El Nino or about Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Accompanying them are predictions by the authors of those posts or by commenters of a pending La Nina event. But the “typical” El Nino event is not followed by a La Nina event. Also, the current 2009/10 El Nino event is an El Nino Modoki; that is, simply, the area with elevated SST anomalies is located more towards the center of the tropical Pacific than a traditional El Nino event; and few La Nina events follow El Nino Modoki.
A number of months ago I noticed some of my visitors arrived from Google searches of “typical El Nino” or “average El Nino”. I prepared this post for them back then but got sidetracked and never posted it.
This post looks at the development and decay of the average El Nino, of the average traditional El Nino, and of the average El Nino Modoki. I’ve also segmented the data into two periods, before and after 1979 to illustrate the change in development and strength of El Nino events. Last, as references, are spaghetti plots of the development and decay of all El Nino events since 1950 (excluding the current El Nino, since it’s not complete). The post could also be used by those bloggers who like to make predictions or by those wanting to see whether prognostications have any basis in history.
THE AVERAGE EL NINO
Figure 1 illustrates the development and decay of the average El Nino event for the period of 1950 through 2007. It starts in January of the development year and ends in December of the following (decay) year. To create the graph, I averaged the SST anomaly (ONI) values for the 24 months associated with each official El Nino event identified on the CPC’s Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) webpage:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The average El Nino reaches the +0.5 deg C threshold of an El Nino in late May, peaks in December, then quickly decays until it drops below the +0.5 deg C El Nino threshold in mid March. The SST anomalies of the average El Nino do drop below zero, but during the following ENSO season they do not cross the -0.5 deg C threshold for a La Nina event.
http://i39.tinypic.com/k3vuvo.png
Figure 1
BEFORE AND AFTER 1979
The frequency and magnitude of ENSO events changed about 1976. Between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s, La Nina events dominated (with a period of El Nino dominance in the 1960s), and after, El Nino events were dominant. This can be illustrated with a long-term graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies smoothed with a 121-month filter, Figure 2.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Figure 2
But studies such as Trenberth et al (2002) divide the data into periods before and after 1979, based on the development of El Nino events, so I’ve divided the data in this post at 1979. (The 1976/77 event was a weak traditional El Nino, and the 1977/78 El Nino was a weak El Nino Modoki.) Link to Trenberth et al (2002) “Evolution of El Nino–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures”:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
The average SST anomalies of the El Nino events before and after 1979 are shown in Figure 3. It comes as no surprise that El Nino events after 1979 are stronger and last longer than those before the cutoff year. Still, even in more recent decades, the average El Nino is not followed by a La Nina.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2wpto8w.png
Figure 3
TRADITIONAL EL NINO VERSUS EL NINO MODOKI
Central Pacific versus Eastern Pacific El Nino events are discussed in a number of recent papers. Ashok et al (2007) “El Nino Modoki and its Possible Teleconnection”… https://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/publications/modoki-ashok.pdf
…provides an equation that can be used to identify El Nino Modoki:
“EMI= [SSTA]A-0.5*[SSTA]B-0.5*[SSTA]C …(1)
“The square bracket in Equation (1) represents the area-averaged SSTA over each of theregions A (165E-140W, 10S-10N), B (110W-70W, 15S-5N), and C (125E-145E, 10S-20N), respectively.”
Ashok et al further describe the basis for their selection of El Nino Modoki events: “Based on the time series of the EMI shown in Figure 4a, we have identified seven typical El Niño Modoki events that lasted from boreal summer through boreal winter, peaking in one of these seasons (seasonal standard deviations for boreal summer and winter are 0.5ºC and 0.54ºC respectively). These typical El Niño Modoki events occurred in 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 2002, and 2004. Additionally, we identified a typical El Niño Modoki during the boreal winter of 1979-80 that lasted through the summer of 1980, though its amplitude fell below the threshold of 0.7 σ by then.” And they clarify with the footnote, “We call an El Niño Modoki event ‘typical’ when its amplitude of the index is equal to or greater than 0.7 σ, where σ is the seasonal standard deviation.”
Ashok et al appeared to use two definitions of an El Nino Modoki: first, the average of boreal summer through boreal winter for most events, and, second, the average of the boreal winter for the 1979 event. Using the average boreal summer through winter (June through February) El Nino Modoki Index and the boreal winter El Nino Modoki Index, Figure 4, as references, I’ve identified the typical El Nino Modoki events before 1979 (based primarily on the boreal winter data when they conflict). These along with traditional El Nino events are shown in Table 1, as are the breakdown of El Nino events after 1979.
http://i40.tinypic.com/16kc3kg.png
Figure 4
###############
http://i39.tinypic.com/24e7v2t.png
Table 1
Note 1: El Nino Modoki events identified by Ashok et al that do not qualify as official El Nino events on the ONI Index have been excluded.
Note 2: As illustrated in Table 1, there were more El Nino Modoki before 1979 than after, yet in press releases we’re advised that El Nino Modoki events are new, and that this NEW TYPE is resulting in a greater number of hurricanes with greater frequency and more potential to make landfall.” Refer to the press release…http://media-newswire.com/release_1094000.html…for the Hye-Mi Kim, et al (2009) paper “Impact of Shifting Patterns of Pacific Ocean Warming on North AtlanticTropical Cyclones”:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5936/77
The press release describes El Nino Modoki as “new” more than once. The “newness” of El Nino Modoki was also contradicted by data in my July 6, 2009 post There Is Nothing New About The El Nino Modoki.
Figure 5 compares the average El Nino Modoki and Traditional El Nino event since 1950. The typical Traditional El Nino is stronger than the El Nino Modoki and it results in a La Nina event, where the typical El Nino Modoki decays to a neutral SST anomaly of ~0.
http://i44.tinypic.com/5pkhn8.png
Figure 5
MORE COMPARISONS
Figures 6 through 9 provide further comparisons of El Nino Modoki and Traditional El Nino events before and after 1979. I won’t discuss these individually, other than to call your attention to the comparison of El Nino Modoki and Traditional El Nino events prior to 1979, Figure 8. Note that El Nino Modoki events were stronger and their durations were longer than Traditional El Nino events.
http://i41.tinypic.com/qz222u.png
Figure 6
###############
http://i41.tinypic.com/bk4ux.png
Figure 7
###############
http://i42.tinypic.com/dqzon.png
Figure 8
###############
http://i39.tinypic.com/elcfa0.png
Figure 9
###############
COMPARISONS OF INDIVIDUAL EL NINO EVENTS
Figure 10 compares the ONI SST anomalies for the 8 Traditional El Nino events from 1950 to 2007. Dashes are used to identify the El Nino events before 1979. Of the 8 Traditional events, only two El Nino events did not transition into La Nina events. The 1976/77 El Nino was followed by the 1977/78 El Nino Modoki.
http://i44.tinypic.com/jtxvg9.png
Figure 10
And the 1951/52 El Nino was not followed by a La Nina. The 1951/52 El Nino is also anomalous in that it peaks before the typical El Nino peak months of November, December, and January. However, looking at maps of ICOADS SST anomaly data (the basis for the Hadley Centre and NCDC’s SST data) for the tropical Pacific for October through December 1951 and for January 1952, Figure 11, we can see that there were few to no SST readings during those months in the NINO3.4 region (and most of the tropical Pacific for that matter), so the 1951/52 El Nino data could be considered suspect. (Always keep in mind that much of SST data before the eras of buoys and satellites are infilled.)
http://i42.tinypic.com/qod3bq.png
Figure 11
And Figure 12 is a comparison of the 10 El Nino Modoki events. I’ve also identified the earlier events with dashes. Of the 10 El Nino Modoki, only 2 events transitioned into La Nina events, the 1963/64 and 1994/95 El Nino events. The SST anomalies during the ENSO season following the 2004/05 El Nino dipped below the La Nina threshold, but did not remain there long enough to be considered an official La Nina.
http://i44.tinypic.com/72deeq.png
Figure 12
CLOSING COMMENT
Will a La Nina follow the 2009/10 El Nino? Considering that only 2 of 10 El Nino Modoki events since 1950 were followed by La Nina events, the odds are against it. But nature does provide surprises.
SOURCES
The ONI data is available through the NOAA CPC webpage:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The HADISST SST anomaly data used for the El Nino Modoki graph, and the ICOADS data used for the tropical Pacific SST maps are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
I also used the KNMI Climate Explorer to create the maps.

OT but I wonder how our famous Dr Leif will argue this one away
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext
So why do we get El nino modokis instead of the stronger normal el ninos that seem to end in more la ninas and then lower temps?
It seems that on average the temp plunge after a modoki isn’t as great and the result is often ( 8 out of 10 ) a change to neutral phase and not la nina.
Does this make sense?
So there is an 80% probability that May weather in the Pacific Northwest will continue as it did in April. A noticeable bite in the air slowly tapering off to October when things will be back to ‘normal’.
Facinating Bob, thanks so much for compiling all that information. With the overall higher ocean heat content since the big climate shift of 76-77, I think there is nothing that anyone should take for granted. Though your point in the difference between El Nino and El Nino Modoki seem quite clear, I wonder if general cyclical ocean events are all being altered since the 76-77 climate shift, and the overall higher ocean heat content. How could they not be?
Let me assure you all that El Nino’s are not what we wish in Hawaii. Particularly on Kauai. We have been watching the last 3 with interest. Hurricane frequency have been less than normal for about 10 years. And the “run” is also a lot shorter. Hmmmm
@Bob
An impressive investiation you made , thankyou.
In this article:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-la-nina-shark-rises-to-bite/
I mostly rely on the Metoffice prediction:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Death%20og%20GW/3.jpg
The Metoffice concludes La Nina, actually a stronger La Nina in just a few months.
But obviously, The Met Office has been wrong before! – And im sure a lot of your considderations where never thought of by the Metoffice.
However, the Metoffice´s La Nina prediction seems to go hand in hand with the marked change in the SOI index:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Death%20og%20GW/5.jpg
And then of course, the fact that under the Nino area of the pacific, most warm water has vanished:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Death%20og%20GW/2.jpg
I allways respect 100% your analysis, Bob, and in this case i think i will conclude nothing, and follow the pacific closely 🙂
The thing is: One more La Nina, and the period of No global warming will be too long for many GW believers to accept. A La Nina could be the end of GW.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Death%20og%20GW/1.jpg
That 121 month filter seems too long. That’s 10 years and will shift peaks significantly. What happens when a 36 month filter is used?
Stephan says:
May 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
OT but I wonder how our famous Dr Leif will argue this one away
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext
The lead author of this paper is Mike Lockwood. This is the same Mike Lockwood who publshed other papers which included the following conclusions:
See http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
See http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
See http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
You make the mistake of thinking that the AGW crowd denies solar variability. On the contrary they rely on solar variability to explain past climate fluctuations. Without them they would have to admit they don’t know. If the Lockwood paper (your link) is correct then the AGW case is strengthened.
Apologies for the OT comment.
EL NINO events arise in an area of the equatorial Pacific where crossings of the magnetic (Z-component) and geographic equators are found. The equatorial crossing has moved east-wards during the last 400 years.
When the longitude of the equatorial crossings is plotted, the ‘20 year’ timescale chart is reminiscent of the global temperature trend for the same period.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
For years I used to read this or that global warmer saying that “1998 was a warm year because of … ” or “it’s cooling now because of the….” followed by el nino or La nina, and I used to believe these were a physical phenomena. I.e. that something physically measurably was happening that could be identified as a “change” which in turn would explain the climatic phenomena.
But when I went to look, there seemed to be no real definition of these events. People just seemed to draw graphs and call the highs one and the lows another. Eventually I realised that explaining climate using these were a bit like saying: “it’s cold today because of a frosty event”. Or it is wet today because of a “rain event”.
Unless or until someone shows me evidence to the contrary as far as I am concerned these are not perturbations on the climate, they are part of the climate. They are not variations that affect the climate, they are part of the natural climatic/weather variation.
OT News: Head Rolls at Met Office After Volcanic Ash forecasts?
According to the Met Office website Keith Groves, the UK Met Office’s Operations & Customer Service Director with responsibility for Forecasting, Observations, and Operational Service Delivery has mysteriously left the Met Office Executive with no sign of any announcement in their press release archive (and nothing obvious on the web). Keith had an active role briefing on the role of “the Met Office as a Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre and how we use our models to advise the aviation industry” (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/volcano/experts.html) during the closure of European airspace following Met Office computer predictions. With no explanation for his disappearance on the executive board it is possible the poor PR for the Met Office (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7608722/Volcanic-ash-cloud-Met-Office-blamed-for-unnecessary-six-day-closure.html) may explain his sudden and unexplained absence from the executive. For current executive see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/board/executive_info.html
He has been replaced by Rob Varley as Operations & Services Director whose previous role on the executive as Government Services Director has been filled by Phil Evans.
Rob Varley is also a member of the Met Office board and has taken over responsibility for “weather, climate and ocean observations, forecasting and the delivery of operational services for customers and the public in the UK and throughout the world.” This strengthens the “climate change” view in the Met Office because since Mr Varley moved to Exeter in 2003, he has mainly worked with public sector customers: “helping the UK to manage the risks and exploit the opportunities associated with our changing weather and climate.”
Phil Evans role as Government Services Director now includes responsibility for: “predictions on climate change; advice on the spreading of airborne animal diseases”.
Great piece!
I think Joe Bastardi would love to to read this article!
He is pretty convinced a La Ninja is on it’s way!
Not this year but the next.
Stephan says: May 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“OT but I wonder how our famous Dr Leif will argue this one away
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext”
Stephen see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/lockwood-demonstrates-link-between-low-sun-and-low-temps/
Is it possible to spell correctly “El Niño” and “La Niña”? Thanks
jorgekafkazar May 2, 2010 at 12:31 am: You wrote, “That 121 month filter seems too long. That’s 10 years and will shift peaks significantly.”
The filter is centered, not weighted toward one end. That is, I’m averaging the 60 months before and the 60 months after the base month.
Atlantic basin hurricane frequency and strengths are often affected by the el nino characteristics. This year is analogous to 2005. Last year, shear destroyed most hurricanes before they got started. This year there is a lot of heat content in the tropical eastern Atlantic and wind conditions may be setting up as conducive to cyclone formation.
More and stronger hurricanes (especially compared to last year) will create a buzz with the AGW proponents.
Thank you Mr Tisdale for explaining this so clearly. The amount of good science coming out of this blog heartens me.
___________________________________________________________________
Stephan says:
May 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
OT but I wonder how our famous Dr Leif will argue this one away
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/fulltext
______________________________________________________________
“We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect…” Other wise known as lets ignore all the data from China and else where because we need to support CAGW to get this paper published and we need the paper so we can confuse the sheep, excuse me the people.
OT – Der Spiegel (Google Translate):
Mike Haseler says: Refer to the Bill Kessler/NOAA FAQ page here.
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
El Nino events release heat from the tropical Pacific. During an El Nino, warm water from the surface and below the surface of the West Pacific Warm Pool sloshes east and speeads across the surface. The change in location of the warm water (western tropical Pacific to central and eastern tropical Pacific) and the “surfacing” of the warm water raises sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. It also changes atmospheric circulation patterns, causing sea surface temperatures to rise in areas remote to the eastern tropical Pacific.
And La Nina events recharge the heat released during the El Nino. I’ve provided lots of detail on the process in a series of posts:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
And:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
Mike Haseler says: May 2, 2010 at 1:42 am
“For years I used to read this or that global warmer saying that “1998 was a warm year because of … ” or “it’s cooling now because of the….” followed by el nino or La nina, and I used to believe these were a physical phenomena…………..
Unless or until someone shows me evidence to the contrary as far as I am concerned …. They are not variations that affect the climate, they are part of the natural climatic/weather variation.”
Hear, Hear! Of course I tend to agree; see my post vukcevic says: May 2, 2010 at 12:50 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/history-suggests-dont-bet-on-la-nina-this-year/#comment-381851
or http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
or http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
Mike Haseler: Also, here’s a gif animation (~1MB) of global SST and global TLT anomaly maps that’s part of a project I’ve been working on. I’ve used a 12-month filter on the maps to minimize the seasonal noise. You can see the 1997/98 El Nino form in the eastern tropical Pacific and the TLT anomalies rise in response. Then you can watch the elevated TLT anomalies travel east and toward the poles. After, as the La Nina forms, the elevated TLT anomalies work their way to the mid latitudes, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, and remain elevated during the La Nina.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2isvzf6.gif
I always appreciate the fact Bob gives us observations based on actual data. It seems much more valuable than theory-based-on-adjustments.
For the past few years I’ve adopted the premise we are entering a period much like 1930-1960, which we have poor records for. (Bob does a good job pointing out how the records from Oct 1951 to Jan 1952 are, to say the least, “incomplete.”) When I visit the site at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
and look at the historical data on page 24 I notice the 1951-1952 El Nino was followed by 27 months of basically neutral conditions. (We need a name for such events, perhaps “El Neutral,” or “La Wishy-washy.”) This was followed by a long, 34 month period of La Nina conditions, (which should be called “La Nina Bill Gray,” if history repeats itself, as he has predicted a swing back to cooler “forsings.”)
The wild card is the quiet sun. This was not occurring back in the 1930-1960 period, and could mess all our predictions up.
melinspain (May 2, 2010 at 5:14) …Pero si…”El Niño”…”La Niña” … I swear by my
old scout honour I didn’t copy from your post…But why not “MelenEspaña?”..[“Swedish”
keyboard!]
Thank you Bob for a most helpful overview.
I’m very impressed by the substantial Sea Surface Temperature increase (about 0.2*C) shown in Fig 3.
That indicates an enormous amount of heat added in the more recent Nino events.
As such, this data seems to me the most robust evidence of global warming yet presented.
Is there anyone you would recommend who has done comprehensive ocean heat content measurements that are publicly available and as intelligible as your Nino/Nina work?
Hmm. so what Bob is saying that if we go neutral. there is no heat going into the system.
From my point of view that is not good. I was under the assumption that Nina was
inexorably linked to Nino….
Thanks for all that hard work Bob..
I’m also wondering if our local farmers should look at barley-again.
having lived through the late 1950’s and 60’s in NE Oregon….