There’s still a possibility the 2014/15 El Niño could die even though it had so much promise just a few months ago. In this post, we’ll compare a few indicators now to where they were 2 months ago at the start of the El Niño enthusiasm. Some of them show an off-season event quickly drawing to a close. We’ll examine other metrics that show the El Niño may not be done yet. And we’ll look at data for a couple of occasions when El Niños looked promising in the first part of the year and then failed to form into a full-fledged El Niño during the remainder. One year, we were coming out of back-to-back La Niñas and the ENSO models predicted an El Niño, and for the other year, El Niño conditions evolved early, like this year, but then retreated over the rest of the year.
First, let’s clear up one thing. I’m not saying the 2014/15 El Niño will die. However, data-based maps and cross sections of the warm water in the eastern tropical Pacific indicate the warm water from the Kelvin wave is being “consumed” quite rapidly. If they’re correct, there won’t be much warm water left if and when we see the feedbacks required to further evolve and sustain the El Nino. Then again, the warm water volume data above the thermocline and depth-averaged temperature data to 300 meters, both for the eastern equatorial Pacific, indicate the warm water is not disappearing as fast as suggested by the maps and cross sections.
PREFACE
In his recent blog post Why do ENSO forecasts use probabilities? at the NOAA ENSO blog, Tony Barston of IRI noted:
For all of the seasons being predicted in this particular forecast, El Niño is the most likely category, with the red bars towering over the other bars. During the latter part of 2014 its probability is near or above 80%. This is a fairly confident forecast for El Niño, but it does still leave about a 20% (1 in 5) chance of it not happening.
While it’s not a high probability according to the models, there is a chance that this El Niño could die. But let’s look at a few indicators other than models.
THEN AND NOW
The chatter about a possible El Niño for the 2014/15 season skyrocketed in April this year. It was based on the strong Kelvin wave that had traveled east across the equatorial Pacific. Due to the strength of that Kelvin wave, some ENSO researchers and laypeople started proclaiming a super El Niño was on the way, but the feedbacks needed to turn this El Niño into a super El Niño, like the one in 1997/98, failed to develop. That is, after the westerly wind bursts that initiated the Kelvin wave this year, the trade winds have not weakened to further help the development on the El Niño. The researchers have since cut back on their estimates of the size of the El Niño, and the models are still predicting a remote chance an El Niño will not continue to develop this year. All depends on the trade winds, which may not cooperate…and so far they have not.
That initiating Kelvin wave and the reasons for its existence were discussed in detail in the first post in this series. Also see the latest (2 weeks old) gif animation of sea surface height anomalies and subsurface temperature anomalies for the top 300 meters of the oceans I prepared for the June update, and refer to the latest animation of the temperature anomaly cross sections for the equatorial Pacific from that post. A couple of weeks have passed since that update and appearances have changed drastically in that time. So let’s take a look at a few gif animations that compare the most recent maps and equatorial cross sections to those from 2 months earlier. The maps and cross sections are available from the NOAA GODAS website.
Animation 1 – Equatorial Cross-Section (Subsurface Temperature Anomalies)
# # #
Animation 2 – Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
# # #
Animation 3 – Depth-Averaged Temperature Anomalies to 300 Meters
# # #
Animation 4 – Sea Surface Height (Sea Level) Anomalies
While the sea surfaces of the equatorial Pacific have warmed in those two months, the other metrics show weakening remnants of that Kelvin wave. Some of that decline happened because that warmer-than-normal water is rising to the surface, where heat is being released to the atmosphere through evaporation. But, there’s something else to consider, and we illustrated and discussed it in the second post of this series. The ocean heat content of the eastern tropical Pacific (24S-24N, 180-80W) was much lower before this El Niño began than it was before the start of the 1997/98 El Niño. See the graph here. In other words, while the Kelvin wave this year was strong, it traveled eastward into a cooler environment. That may also be impacting the evolution of this El Niño.
The title of the post is based on the recent maps of pentadal (June 17th) GODAS depth-averaged temperature anomalies and sea surface height anomalies and on their equatorial cross sections of subsurface temperature anomalies, not on sea surface temperature anomalies. Later we’ll take a look at the data from the NOAA Tropical Atmosphere-Ocean (TAO) Project website.
EL NIÑOS THAT FAILED TO DEVELOP
Preliminary discussion: If we looked at the evolutions for all of the El Niño events since 1982, the evolution so far this year would not look out of place. See the 4th post in this series. In other words, don’t sell this one short…yet. And as we’ll see with the sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO1+2 region, strong east Pacific El Niño events can develop quite late in the year. But Figures 1 and 2 (that follow), along with the graphs in the 4th post in this series, can give you an idea of the problems researchers face when trying to predict an El Niño early in the season. No two El Niño events are the same…and some of them can fail to develop.
In a number of the posts in this series about the 2014/15 El Niño, we’ve illustrated the evolution of the sea surface temperature anomalies for a number of NINO regions this year and compared them to the evolutions of the strong El Niños of 1982/83 and 1997/98. Of course, for the (most commonly used) NINO3.4 region, the sea surface temperatures for this El Niño are far below those for those super El Niños. But in the eastern equatorial Pacific, in the NINO1+2 region (south and west of the Galapagos), the sea surface temperature anomalies this year are between those for the two often-referenced strong events.
But where does this El Niño fall when compared to a year when El Niño conditions developed early but then failed to last long enough to meet the requirements for an “official” El Niño…or for a year where the models predicted an El Niño but an El Niño failed to form? For an El Niño to be an official event in NOAA’s eyes, a 3-month running average of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region must remain at or above +0.5 deg C for 5 consecutive months. (See NOAA’s ONI webpage.) In 1993, weekly NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies rose above 1.0 deg C early in the year, considerably higher than where we are this year, but then weakened. And in 2012, the ENSO models were predicting an El Niño for the 2012/13 season, but one failed to develop. See pages 25 to 28 of the WaybackMachine-archived NOAA ENSO Update for June 11, 2012. So let’s add 1993 and 2012 to the evolution comparisons. See Figure 1 for the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 170W-120W) data, and Figure 2 for the NINO1+2 region (10S-0, 90W-80W).
Figure 1
# # #
Figure 2
Again, if we were to add all of the El Niño events since 1982 to those graphs, the current values would not be out of line. But Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that the equatorial Pacific can give evidence of an El Niño early in the year, and then the El Niño can fail to develop to meet NOAA’s requirements for an official event. And in 2012, the ENSO models were predicting an El Niño and the models missed the mark. The sea surface temperatures warmed in mid-year, but then quickly returned to ENSO neutral conditions.
DATA SHOW THERE’S STILL SOME WARM WATER LEFT IN THE EASTERN EQUATORIAL PACIFIC
According to the TAO Project data, the warm water volume (above the thermocline) and the depth-averaged temperature (to 300 meters) for the eastern equatorial Pacific (5S-5N, 155W-80W) indicate there’s still a chunk of warm water left. See Figures 3 and 4. (I’ve included 1993 and 2012 solely as references in those graphs. Someone was bound to ask.)
Figure 3
# # #
Figure 4
WHY THE DIFFERENCES?
Curiously, the maps and cross sections appear to show a quick drop in the warm water volume, sea surface height, and depth-averaged temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific but the data, which for June are month-to-date values, do not seem to reflect that. Why? The “data” presented by the TAO website is actually a reanalysis based on the data from their floats, and it’s calculated from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Center (BMRC) Ocean Analyses. See the TAO project “read me” file here. And while I know the values of the data for the current month do change over the course of the month, I do not know how frequently they’re updated at the TAO project website. (I downloaded it this morning.) On the other hand, the maps and cross sections at the GODAS website are based on NOAAs GFDL MOM.v3 reanalysis. See the GODAS introduction here (pdf).
Both reanalysis should be relying on the same TAO project buoy data, and one would think they both would be using data from ARGO. GODAS appears to use satellite altimetry data for their sea surface height maps, but is satellite altimetry also used in the BMRC reanalysis? Dunno. One of the problems may be the reduced operation of the TAO project floats, caused by NOAA budget cuts. (See the concluding remarks at the end of first post in this series.) And another problem may be, there may not be enough sensors that far to the east along the equatorial Pacific. See the bottom cell of Figure 5.
Figure 5
The bottom cell of Figure 5 presents the buoy-based observations used in the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data for the week of June 15-21, 2014. In addition to surface temperatures, the TAO project buoys in the tropical Pacific (blue circles) also measure subsurface temperatures, as do the ARGO floats (red dots). We can see that the TAO project buoys in the eastern tropical Pacific are operational (or were last week), but they only reach as far east as 85W.
Which reanalysis is correct? The new NOAA Real Time Multiple Ocean Reanalysis Intercomparison website presents their comparisons of 6 reanalyses on a monthly basis, so they would not have captured the sharp decline in recent weeks shown in the GODAS maps and cross-sections. For a quick introduction to the NOAA Real Time Multiple Ocean Reanalysis Intercomparison website, see the post here.
It really is unfortunate that NOAA cut the budget for the maintenance of the TAO project floats.
CLOSING
Without more westerly wind bursts and a weakening of the trade winds in the western equatorial Pacific, the warm water in the eastern equatorial Pacific will continue to decline, and we could very possibly have another ENSO-neutral year.
So far, those feedbacks have not kicked in. See the most recent post in this series (Part 10) for a further discussion.
EARLIER POSTS IN THIS SERIES
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 1 – The Initial Processes of the El Niño.
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 2 – The Alarmist Misinformation (BS) Begins
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 3 – Early Evolution – Comparison with 1982/83 & 1997/98 El Niño Events
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 4 – Early Evolution – Comparison with Other Satellite-Era El Niños
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 5 – The Relationship Between the PDO and ENSO
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 6 – What’s All The Hubbub About?…
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 7 – May 2014 Update and What Should Happen Next
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 8 – The Southern Oscillation Indices
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”
- The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 10 – June 2014 Update – Still Waiting for the Feedbacks
And for additional introductory discussions of El Niño processes see:
- An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events
- El Niño and La Niña Basics: Introduction to the Pacific Trade Winds
- La Niñas Do NOT Suck Heat from the Atmosphere
- ENSO Basics: Westerly Wind Bursts Initiate an El Niño
FURTHER READING
My ebook Who Turned on the Heat? goes into a tremendous amount of detail to explain El Niño and La Niña processes and the long-term aftereffects of strong El Niño events. Who Turned on the Heat? weighs in at a whopping 550+ pages, about 110,000+ words. It contains somewhere in the neighborhood of 380 color illustrations. In pdf form, it’s about 23MB. It includes links to more than a dozen animations, which allow the reader to view ENSO processes and the interactions between variables.
I’ve lowered the price of Who Turned on the Heat? from U.S.$8.00 to U.S.$5.00. A free preview in pdf format is here. The preview includes the Table of Contents, the Introduction, the first half of section 1 (which was provided complete in the post here), a discussion of the cover, and the Closing. Take a run through the Table of Contents. It is a very-detailed and well-illustrated book—using data from the real world, not models of a virtual world. Who Turned on the Heat? is only available in pdf format…and will only be available in that format. Click here to purchase a copy. Thanks. (I also am very thankful when I receive tips or donations.)
docattheautopsy says: “On animated graph #2, it seems as though the most recent & two month ago charts are flipped, as the data seems to be in contradiction to the rest of the data presented.”
Animation 2 is out of synch with the others. The warmer-than-normal water that had been below the surface has risen to the surface.
I am put off by your Figures 1 thru 4. They are comparing this year’s trend to known El Ninos.
But that ignores all the years that did not have El Ninos that may have had similar comparative months. How can you judge the probabilities of El Ninos if you don’t include the false alarms?
Take Figure 1. Show all years that show at least 1 deg C warming between week 1 and week 25. How many years is that? How many turned into El Nino’s? How about a 1.25 deg C warming? How about 1.5 deg C? Do this for a selection of thresholds and you will get a probability function of El Nino’s based upon observed warming in the first 25 weeks of a year.
And a travesty they’re taking down the USRCRN begun in 2009.
?!?!? When did that happen? Was the announcement in Lois Lerner’s email archive?
Stephen Rasey says: “I am put off by your Figures 1 thru 4.”
Feel free to present that data you wish to present as you wish to present it.
I must be getting old. I’m not going to quote the references to the PDO and discuss that the PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. I wrote a detailed post about that very subject not too long ago:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/the-201415-el-nino-part-5-the-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-enso/
Stephen Rasey, further to my reply above, here’s a link to the old NOAA ONI index.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears_1971-2000_climo.shtml
How many additional years with early El Nino conditions since 1982 are there for me to add to that graph that weren’t already presented in the referenced post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/the-201415-el-nino-part-4-early-evolution-comparison-with-other-satellite-era-el-ninos/
I don’t see any. Do you?
Thanks Bob. Great read.
A small thing. BMRC is the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre.
Bob Weber: Yes, the concept is testable. There are real mechanisms at play. Much work is needed. That said, there is a mountain of evidence to support the concept Stockwell introduces.
Let me try again: Has he published an actual prediction for, say, the next two decades, that we can read, download, store, and save for comparison to future data? The future course of the sun is not known, but he could formulate 3 possible trajectories, as Hansen did with CO2 trajectories, and make the prediction corresponding to each trajectory.
Bob W. I stand by what I said about your posts. Show me in any raw data (or even the dreaded homogenized ones) temperature series you want to use that your speculation holds true throughout the data series. Here is why I know it will not. Earth’s own intrinsic variables have far greater energy to pull a shade down or up in front of the Sun and reflect away its miniscule variations. The noise of Earth’s highly variable environment buries solar variations in all its manifestations.
Your speculations are vacuous because of your disregard for Earth’s own far more powerful intrinsic short and long term variability that can be described and accounted for with plausible mechanisms. You however, seem all too eager to enter a room full of dung, ignore the elephant, and look for a mouse turd. However, on the bright side, I encourage you to go continue your work on your website and get it up and running. Please.
is the el Nino dying ?
YES, seemingly according to WUWT own ENSO page @ur momisugly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/enso/
Looking at these maps, maybe this is a different phenomenon altogether,
its quite unlike the “normal” el Nino, and is a bit different from a Modoki.
It’s hardly even a “southern oscillation”, and maybe it should be called
an “el nino extraviado”, (the lost child) or the ENEWO ….
( El Nino Extraviado Western Oscillation )
I am predicting an ENEWO which will dwindle away to a “normal” La Nina.
it’s as likely as not.
There is a biological and electrical complexity involved and ENSO is no different than the tornadoes that Chandler has described as having an electrical complexity. There are several electrical things involved. The first is with surface lows CO2 comes out of solution and increases the conductivities of the clouds involved, thereby enhancing them. The second is that the warmer ocean water is, the LESS CO2 it can hold. In this case the warm upwelling water did not jump start the monsoonal features, which react to the fact that the warmer ocean water is, not only the more energy it can contain but the more conductive it becomes. It didn’t jump start the tropics in the EPAC, relatively speaking, because of huge dams in south central Mexico that have been constructed, which impacts carbonation levels in the near shore oceans there, and again conductivity, and a volcano in Indonesia, which also will have a conductivity implication on cloud behaviors, this time on the west side of the Pacific.
@Bob Tisdale at 2:35 pm
How many additional years with early El Nino conditions since 1982 are there for me to add to that graph that weren’t already presented in the referenced post here:
From the most current version of the ONI link you provided: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
On a first pass, I am looking for about a 1 deg C rise within the first 6 periods of the year.
V. Strong El Nino
1997 -0.5 to 1.2 (0.7 in May) peaks at 2.4 in Nov. 1997 V. Strong
1982 -0.1 to 0.7 (only a +0.8 in 6 months, but peaks at 2.2 in Dec. V. Strong
1972 -0.6 to 0.8 (0.4 in April) ElNeno under way, peaks 2.1 in Nov. V. Strong.
1965 -0.6 to 0.8 (0.5 in May), El Nino under way, Peaks 1.9 oct. V. Strong.
1957 -0.3 to 1.0 (0.7 in April), El nino underway), peaks 1.8 Dec, Strong and long.
Strong El Ninos:
2009: -0.8 to 0.4 (6 months) peaks to 1.6 in Dec 209 Strong.
2006 -0.9 to 0.1 (6 months) peaks at 1.0 in Nov. 2006 Strong
2002 -0.2 to 0.7 (6 months, El Nino underway) peaks at 1.3 in Nov. 2002
1968 -0.6 to 0.1 (6 months) peaks at 1.1 Mar 1969 for long El Nino Strong.
1963 -0.4 to 0.5 (6 months, El nino Threshold, Peaks 1.4, Strong.
1951 -0.8 to 0.4 (6 months), peaks 1.2 in oct. Strong.
Weak El Ninos
2012 -0.9 to 0.0 (6 months) peaks at 0.6 Weak
1976 -1.5 to -0.1 (6 months) peaks at 0.8 Nov. Weak
Failure
2011: -1.4 to -0.2 (6 months) sputters and peaks at 0.2. Fail
2008: -1.5 to -0.5 (6 months) peaks to -0.1 in Sept 2008 Fail
1996 -0.9 to -0.2 (only +0.7 in 6 months) at and fails.
1989 -1.7 to -0.4 (6 months) peaks at -0.3 Fail
1974 -1.9 to -0.7 (6 months) peaks at -0.4 Fail
18 cases in 63 years.
7 of 18 (about 40%) are failure or weak El Ninos. Each of these failures began from strong La Ninas. And None of the Failures are Positive by June.
5 of 18 are very strong El Ninos, but all are established El Ninos by June.
6 of 18 are strong, all are positive by june, only 1 is established as an El Nino.
I note that 2013 mimics 2014 closely for the first 4 months and 2013 remained between -0.4 and -0.2 the rest of the year.
Likewise 2001 is similar 2014 for the first 4 months. Yet remained neutral. 2001 and 2004 did not show a 1 deg rise.
On the other hand,
1986 -0.5 to 0.0 in 6 months, continued into a strong and long El nino peaking 1.6 in Aug. 1987.
So it would seem that a 1 deg rise in the first half of the year is not a sufficient condition to bring on an El Nino, 40% fail or sputter out, usually from the ending of a La Nina.
But if you couple a 1 degree rise in the first half of the year WITH a 0.0 to 0.5 by June, then I count no Failures, 1 weak, 5 Strong, zero very strong El Ninos. Not a big set, but then the conditions are restricted to “near El Nino”.
We’re all ignorant about something, and I’m ignorant about this. Should I become knowledgeable, or should I wait until mid-summer like the meteorology professor in my home town, Seattle, suggested a few months ago?
A couple months ago, Cliff Mass of the U of Washington, wrote that the most likely outcome was a mild El Nino, but that we wouldn’t really know until mid summer. Reading between the lines of this writeup, it seems that his projection is on target so far.
Stephen Rasey says: “So it would seem that a 1 deg rise in the first half of the year is not a sufficient condition to bring on an El Niño…”
Your presentation is not a response to my earlier reply to you.
My presentation in the post was not about a “1 deg rise in the first half of the year”. It was about reaching 1 deg C anomaly early in the year, like in 1993, or having the models predict an El Niño and one failed to develop, like in 2012. Again, as I wrote and you quoted:
How many additional years with early El Nino conditions since 1982 are there for me to add to that graph that weren’t already presented in the referenced post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/the-201415-el-nino-part-4-early-evolution-comparison-with-other-satellite-era-el-ninos/
I’m interested to see what the upcoming temp data, over the next few days/weeks will show. The big quakes (Alaska 7.9-8.0 and NZ 6.9) surely caused considerable mixing…could they be the final nail for this year’s El Nino?
As usual, first reports should never be regarded as valuable information. They will almost always mislead. GK
Here is a link to Cliff Mass’s discussion of the prospects for a super El Nino. He wrote it on April 5th. He noted the warming in the sea surface temps of the tropical Pacific, and explained how this could be a precursor for a super El Nino. Then he attached tthree big caveats.
First, he said, was the low correlation between early spring readings and ultimate developments. You can’t begin to get confident of an El Nino forecast until July. Secondly, he pointed to models that projected a moderate El Nino, not a “super” El Nino. Thirdly, he wrote that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (a topic he’s discussed before) is wrong for a super El Nino — we’re in a cool phase, and super El Ninos tend not to occur in cool phases of the PDO.
He concluded by predicting “at least a weak El Nino next winter,” but cautioned that we won’t have a clear idea until mid-summer.
Mass is what you’d call here a “mild warmist,” of whatever the label for that is. I’ve always had the sense that he’s not fully on board with warming at all, but perhaps pulls that punch to keep his academic standing. He was blacklisted by the big public radio station a while back in what can only be described as a classic setup, and I’ve always suspected that the real motive was because he’s insufficiently alarmist for the “progressives” who things in Seattle.
Anyway, here’s the link:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/04/is-super-el-nino-coming-next-winter.html
HELP! I have a dimwit of a friend who has taken to Youtube to proclaim that El Nino is roaring in with a vengeance. To prove her point, she shows the State of the Climate May 2014 Global Analysis as predicting this “powerful El Nino”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/5
as affirming the El Nino because of the heat noted.
Second, she then shows the NOAA’s Land and Ocean Tempertaure Departure from Average 5/14
to further “prove” the onset of the El Nino and of the El Nino is getting worse (she eliminates January and Feburary, shows the map, then goes and only shows the month of May 2014. She then confirms “See, look that El Nino is getting much worse and that therefore “climate change” although miscalculated sometimes, must not be ignored!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201405.gif
Could you pretty please tell me why this is wrong? I doubt she is using those charts correctly, but I am confident someone could explain it to me, I could then take issue with this person.
Thanks Sherry
@Bob Tisdale at 5:22 am to Stephen Rasey
Your presentation is not a response to my earlier reply to you.
It was. Look at the last paragraph.
The real issue is what are “early El Nino Conditions”?
If they are that we are already in an El Nino by April, well then of course there are no failures since the condition precludes them. Indeed a 1 deg rise, plus El Nino conditions by April gives 7 of 7 at least a Strong El Nino and 5 of 7 as very strong.
But If “early El Nino conditions” include cases where there has been 1 deg of warming, but we are not yet in El Nino, then what happens? That was the focus of my response. If we preface that we must be positive by June, then those years are:(failures) None, (weak) 2012; (strong) 2009, 2006, 1968, 1963, 1951; ( v. Strong) none)
One thing that has happened in the last few days is that the TAO buoys are coming back on-line (I guess they decided it was worth replacing them right now even though metal pirates continue to scavenge them).
95W 0N (which hasn’t been in operation for a couple of years and is by far the most important location) is looking very un-El-Nino-like right now.
http://tao.noaa.gov/styles/images/latdepth/5day/95W_temp_yz_hf_20140623.png
I use this website for the TAO buoys since it is more useful (and has less bugs than the regular TAO site).
http://tao.noaa.gov/refreshed/sectionPlots.php?type=5day&sec=depth&var=temp
Sherry Moore says:
June 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm
“HELP! I have a dimwit of a friend who has taken to Youtube to proclaim that El Nino is roaring in with a vengeance.”
You might try reading this:
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/details-june-2014-enso-discussion
It says there is not currently an El Niño. (early June)
ENSO pages include a definition on page 20 and a table on 23:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Your friend (? why) is the mouse that roars.
This reminds me of a joke about a person that entered a grocery repeatedly asking to buy some little brown onions. To paraphrase the punch line – There’s no xzy’n El Niño.
Bob Tisdale,
Excellent post. Your clarity of explanations are leading this old metallurgical engineer to a glimmering of what drives the El Nino/La Nina cycles, and much of the corresponding weather effects on the USA. I (and many others, I’m sure) appreciate your efforts here. Thank You!
It seems we may be stuck with La Nada, some where between the I-can’t-commit El Nino and the fickle bitch La Nina. As in human relationships, ‘Time Will Tell…’.
Mac
Thanks John F. Hultquist, I sure appreciate your help! Thank you! 🙂
Although some metrics may be faltering now, it’s much too early to write-off the prospects of a full-blown El Nino developing by the end of the year. The wide-band process is nowhere near predictable enough over a six-month horizon.
Two-dimensional temperature anomaly plots can be very misleading when advection and local forcing of changes are both involved, as it always is with oceanic data. The persistent aphysical notion that “warmer-than-normal water is rising to the surface” based on the position of anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific only obscures the true situation, in which temperature stratification persists over the weekly averaging intervals, without any upwelling.