When will the multi-decade active era that began in 1995 end?

[LarryWx]

Another thing that occasionally happens, looking at history, as that even in non-El Nino years, if it's been a while since the last El Nino event, conditions eventually get rather unfavorable for big hurricanes in the Atlantic. 2013 is the most recent good example of this, but not the only one. Another quiet, non-El Nino year that immediately comes to mind is 1962, when it had been four years since the last El Nino. I also believe we were in an active period during that time, am I correct?

Or another front, sometimes those types of years favor quantity, but little quality. Think 1981 and 1990, for instance. 1981 had 12 storms (one being subtropical) and 1990 had 14. Yet, few of the storms in those two years got particularly strong for particularly long periods of time. I question Floyd from 1981's status as a Category 3 if its minimum pressure was 975 mb, as it looked like an average-sized hurricane...this could suggest a high-end Category 1 or a low-end Category 2 instead, but re-analysis will tell us in a few years or so. Only two other majors occurred that year, and one major very briefly occurred in 1990. (I don't question the intensities of those majors as much as Floyd in 1981 though.) The last El Nino event before each of these years was in 1977 and 1987, respectively, a fairly long gap between El Nino events.

It kind of begs the question, is there an irony that Atlantic hurricanes need El Nino every now and then in order to have more fuel pumped for when those events subside? Is the energy that hurricanes need sapped when El Nino doesn't take place often?

-Andrew92

Yeah I do wonder if El Ninos are needed to get big hurricanes in the Atlantic. Very interesting theory. Also were any of the active years in the 20s-40s el niño years that featured big Atlantic hurricanes or do we not have el nino data that goes back that far?

El Nino's of 20's-40's: 1923, 1925, 1930, 1939, 1940, 1941

[Andrew92]

Here's a consideration I just noticed on this topic.

Mid-July in 1997, 2002, and 2006 featured at least one tropical cyclone in the subtopics off the East Coast. I think all of us know by now that, like this year, those were traditional El Nino hurricane seasons.

But there is something else I noticed. This mid-July activity didn't occur, so far as we know, in any other traditional El Nino event since at least 1957. (I am not counting depressions that failed to intensify.) That's actually important for two reasons:

1. It's being discussed in the models thread that activity may come this year around that time and location.

2. Those three years are in the active period since 1995!

It isn't a great sample, there is no guarantee we will see activity off the East Coast in mid-July this year, and it didn't happen in 2009. But keep an eye on this, as it has only happened in this active era when a traditional El Nino is present. A sign, if it does happen, that the active period is not over, perhaps?

-Andrew92

[Yellow Evan]

2002 isn't a traditional Nino FTR

[Andrew92]

I thought a traditional had warmer waters immediately off of South America? And 2002 appears to have had that criteria met, though occasionally the water would cool, only to warm back up.

I can also see where there were warmer anomalies in the central part. But the sign of a Modoki is those warm central anomalies, but coupled with cool anomalies east and west of there. Maybe not a classic traditional El Nino, but certainly no classic Modoki event either, from what I can tell. But definitely an El Nino all the same.

In any event, keep an eye on frontal lows off the East Coast in the middle of July for the reasons I previously said.

-Andrew92

[Ntxw]

2002 was very similar to 2009. Both were essentially basin wide events with mostly 3.4 being warmer than 1+2 most of it's duration. Tropical forcing was stronger over the central pacific towards the dateline and weaker to the east. It was not the tight gradient from east to west that we see with traditional events. A good way to look is rainfall in Nino 3 and 1+2, if they are not more than normal good sign it is a modoki.

Edit: Some visuals to help






1997

[xtyphooncyclonex]

I thought a traditional had warmer waters immediately off of South America? And 2002 appears to have had that criteria met, though occasionally the water would cool, only to warm back up.

I can also see where there were warmer anomalies in the central part. But the sign of a Modoki is those warm central anomalies, but coupled with cool anomalies east and west of there. Maybe not a classic traditional El Nino, but certainly no classic Modoki event either, from what I can tell. But definitely an El Nino all the same.

In any event, keep an eye on frontal lows off the East Coast in the middle of July for the reasons I previously said.

-Andrew92

The point is mainly on most of the event at its peak. The entire 2002 El Niño event (May-March) was a Modoki. Having said that this has been a modoki, 2009 transitioned to a modoki later on. Strong forcing and anomalies seen over the CPac and almost none over the 1+2 region

[Andrew92]

Thank you all for this teaching lesson! Maybe there is something to where the peak anomalies are in the Central Pacific while still some warm anomalies present further east, that could be a Modoki. Maybe one that also acts somewhat like a weak traditional though just because the eastern part does still have some warmth, just not as much as the Central part.

Another weather mystery to unravel. Which makes the weather so fun to analyze and discuss, in my opinion!

-Andrew92

[Hurricaneman]

The only way to find out if the active era has ended is wait until next year or 2017 as we can gague where we are then in regards to whether this is a new era or we are still in an active pattern

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products

[RL3AO]

If the next 3 to 5 years are near average overall, then we can claim a pattern switch. We are talking about a 25 to 40 year oscillation. Don't be too quick to call for the flip when expectations say its still a ways away.

[TeamPlayersBlue]

How does shear factor into this idea? Obviously El nino years have alot more shear than other years and will inhibit the growth of storms.

[CrazyC83]

Even "quiet" periods will likely have the odd year with very high activity. 1916 and 1969 were not in active periods, for example.

[Steve]

Crazy,

69 was probably the end of the last warm period. Pattern flipped from roughly 1970 to 1994 and then got active again from 1995 until??? There was an article in today's paper where CSU is proclaiming/implying the end of the warm amo and period of increased activity. Countering that is Dr Emanuel of MIT who says they are premature and others who want to wait for a little more proof. i personally feel like we are sort of in a transitional phase but nothing is absolute yet. I tend to believe we are roughly 5-10 years away from a definitive flip. http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf ... _weak.html

[Hurricaneman]

Crazy,

69 was probably the end of the last warm period. Pattern flipped from roughly 1970 to 1994 and then got active again from 1995 until??? There was an article in today's paper where CSU is proclaiming/implying the end of the warm amo and period of increased activity. Countering that is Dr Emanuel of MIT who says they are premature and others who want to wait for a little more proof. i personally feel like we are sort of in a transitional phase but nothing is absolute yet. I tend to believe we are roughly 5-10 years away from a definitive flip. http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf ... _weak.html

I believe we are still in the active era due to when El Ninos are this strong in a non active era there tend to be 5 or less storms in non active era el nino years and this year looks like there could be up to 10 named storms

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products

[Hammy]

As far as the AMO, we're in a slump right now, which as a few pro mets have pointed out here, this active period was unusual so far in not having one. Keep in mind also that the slump basically began in 2013, when -global- tropical activity was down for some reason, and this year (as well as last to some degree) are being affected by El Nino. Certain conditions in the Atlantic this year--having four storms in two weeks in the MDR, two of which were hurricanes, and five of the seven being of tropical origin--this despite El Nino, as well as the strength of the waves coming off of Africa indicate that the short term slump is likely nearing it's end. I personally think we're at about 50-60% of the way through at most.

[cycloneye]

Very interesting articule that Dr Phil Klotzbach wrote that for sure will spark more discussions about this question about if the active era since 1995 has ended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ca ... y-be-over/

[WPBWeather]

Very interesting articule that Dr Phil Klotzbach wrote that for sure will spark more discussions about this question about if the active era since 1995 has ended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ca ... y-be-over/

Saw this already. Most main stream weather scientists have criticized PKs letter, it's not even a scientific study. This guy goes out on many limbs.

[tolakram]

Very interesting articule that Dr Phil Klotzbach wrote that for sure will spark more discussions about this question about if the active era since 1995 has ended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ca ... y-be-over/

Saw this already. Most main stream weather scientists have criticized PKs letter, it's not even a scientific study. This guy goes out on many limbs.

Can you point to some of these criticisms? This article has a published date of 11:35am today.

His paper is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2529.html You get free access if using the link provided by the Washington post article.

[WPBWeather]

Very interesting articule that Dr Phil Klotzbach wrote that for sure will spark more discussions about this question about if the active era since 1995 has ended.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ca ... y-be-over/

Saw this already. Most main stream weather scientists have criticized PKs letter, it's not even a scientific study. This guy goes out on many limbs.

Can you point to some of these criticisms? This article has a published date of 11:35am today.

His paper is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2529.html You get free access if using the link provided by the Washington post article.

Happy to. This summarizes many of the critics. One can go to the MIT Weather guy's site to drill down to the details.

All I am saying is that Klotzbach did NOT do any study with this report. Only pure speculation.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... s-disagree

[terstorm1012]

While I wouldn't say the active cycle is over he does present some evidence that the AMO is in the process of shifting back to negative.

also Klotzbach did author a study published in Nature Geoscience (unfortunately behind a paywall.) If I manage to get my hands on it I'll post a summary. So it isn't just speculation on his part.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2529.html

[otowntiger]

Yes. It seems so.