ENSO Updates (2007 thru 2023)

[Kingarabian]

Maybe some upwelling soon:

[CyclonicFury]

Daily SOI up to +12 while the 30-day SOI average is now above zero.

[NotSparta]

Not sure if this means much of anything in the long run, but a minor cold pool has emerged below the warm pool

[NDG]

Not sure if this means much of anything in the long run, but a minor cold pool has emerged below the warm pool

To get out of this is that the trend during the past month is that the warm pool is taking a big beating, is on a cooling trend. Watch the pros start back paddling over the next few days towards at least El Nino arriving later than sooner.

[Kingarabian]

Seeing more and more similarities with 2012 at the sub surface. Only glaring difference is the OHC which 2012 pales in comparison. Going to hold off on the El Nino cancel till we see how August goes, but it's getting close. I wasn't that interested in ENSO during 2012 so I don't know how the sentiment was during that time. But 2012-esque El Nino head fakes are probably the worst.

[NotSparta]

Seeing more and more similarities with 2012 at the sub surface. Only glaring difference is the OHC which 2012 pales in comparison. Going to hold off on the El Nino cancel till we see how August goes, but it's getting close. I wasn't that interested in ENSO during 2012 so I don't know how the sentiment was during that time. But 2012-esque El Nino head fakes are probably the worst.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/l9PBEty.png[/ig]

I'm still against the idea of an El Niño bust, I do think this yr ekes out an El Niño, w/ a stronger one in 2019.

[CyclonicFury]

Seeing more and more similarities with 2012 at the sub surface. Only glaring difference is the OHC which 2012 pales in comparison. Going to hold off on the El Nino cancel till we see how August goes, but it's getting close. I wasn't that interested in ENSO during 2012 so I don't know how the sentiment was during that time. But 2012-esque El Nino head fakes are probably the worst.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/l9PBEty.png[/ig]

I'm still against the idea of an El Niño bust, I do think this yr ekes out an El Niño, w/ a stronger one in 2019.

I don't know about that. Two year El Niños are quite uncommon. We did have 1986-88 and 2014-16, but most are just one year events.

[Kingarabian]

We know this of course but just a reminder from Dr. Ventrice:

 https://twitter.com/MJVentrice/status/1022860841094467584




 https://twitter.com/MJVentrice/status/1022861431950196736

[NDG]

The +1.0C + SSTs are now gone over the eastern section of Nino 3.4, cooling down rapidly this week.

[LarryWx]

Seeing more and more similarities with 2012 at the sub surface. Only glaring difference is the OHC which 2012 pales in comparison. Going to hold off on the El Nino cancel till we see how August goes, but it's getting close. I wasn't that interested in ENSO during 2012 so I don't know how the sentiment was during that time. But 2012-esque El Nino head fakes are probably the worst.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/l9PBEty.png[/ig]

I'm still against the idea of an El Niño bust, I do think this yr ekes out an El Niño, w/ a stronger one in 2019.

I don't know about that. Two year El Niños are quite uncommon. We did have 1986-88 and 2014-16, but most are just one year events.

They may not be common, but they aren't all that rare either. These are the ones I know about: 2014-6, 1986-8, 1939-42 (a triple!), 1913-5, 1904-6, 1887-9, and 1876-8. For the period 1870-1950, about 1/3 of El Ninos were muiltiyear. 1968-70 was so close to being a double but technically wasn't due to a very short break near +0.4. I'm not counting consecutive El Ninos like 1968-9/1969-70 and 1976-7/1977-8 as doubles.

What would be a rarity would be to have two multiples so close together. If there were to be a double 2018-20, that would mean two multiples just 4 years apart! Going back to
1865, there are none nearly that close together. The closest is 9 years apart. Now, when looking at consecutives and multiples, combined, the closest is only 3 years apart back in the 1880s. Perhaps what we'll end up with are consecutives for 2018-9 and 2019-20 rather than an actual double.

Due to the still pretty persistent solidly warm subsurface (though not as warm as earlier), I'm sticking with my prediction of delayed but not denied, a weak to moderate El Nino starting after the ASO trimonth for 2018-9. I think that that May Eurosip prediction of only warm neutral for ASO will be right after all. The actual number was near +0.35 with a full month of borderline weak not starting til October. That's near what I'm going with currently. We'll see though. June/July Eurosips both had about +0.5/barely a weak El Nino for ASO with the July Eurosip having the first full month of borderline weak El Nino starting in Sep instead of Oct.

[NDG]

Kirk Hinz | BAM Weather
@Met_khinz
One misconception about the state of ENSO is to assume it’s completely based off of the water temps across the EQ Pacific. To me this seems out-dated. Subsfc waters may look #Nino, but w/ the lack of WWBs ahead, +SOI recent trends, -AAM forecast & forecast NPAC ridge argues #Nina

 https://twitter.com/Met_khinz/status/1022872185784946689

[Eric Webb]

I'm still against the idea of an El Niño bust, I do think this yr ekes out an El Niño, w/ a stronger one in 2019.

I don't know about that. Two year El Niños are quite uncommon. We did have 1986-88 and 2014-16, but most are just one year events.

They may not be common, but they aren't all that rare either. These are the ones I know about: 2014-6, 1986-8, 1939-42 (a triple!), 1913-5, 1904-6, 1887-9, and 1876-8. For the period 1870-1950, about 1/3 of El Ninos were muiltiyear. 1968-70 was so close to being a double but technically wasn't due to a very short break near +0.4. I'm not counting consecutive El Ninos like 1968-9/1969-70 and 1976-7/1977-8 as doubles.

What would be a rarity would be to have two multiples so close together. If there were to be a double 2018-20, that would mean two multiples just 4 years apart! Going back to
1865, there are none nearly that close together. The closest is 9 years apart. Now, when looking at consecutives and multiples, combined, the closest is only 3 years apart back in the 1880s. Perhaps what we'll end up with are consecutives for 2018-9 and 2019-20 rather than an actual double.

Due to the still pretty persistent solidly warm subsurface (though not as warm as earlier), I'm sticking with my prediction of delayed but not denied, a weak to moderate El Nino starting after the ASO trimonth for 2018-9. I think that that May Eurosip prediction of only warm neutral for ASO will be right after all. The actual number was near +0.35 with a full month of borderline weak not starting til October. That's near what I'm going with currently. We'll see though. June/July Eurosips both had about +0.5/barely a weak El Nino for ASO with the July Eurosip having the first full month of borderline weak El Nino starting in Sep instead of Oct.

Reality is much closer than 9 years for consecutive double NINOs if we make the definition for a multi-year NINO just a little more flexible and look more closely at the ENS ONI.
Here's the link to the ENS ONI again in case anyone needs a reminder: https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

I would probably classify 1976-78 as a double NINO which means there's only a 6 year break between 1968-70 & 1976-78. 1919-20 is very close to being classified in my ENS ONI index (only missed the criteria by 0.03C) and if so, this would mean there's at least one double NINO series that was only 3 years apart. 1899-01 >>> 1904-06 is only about 3.5 years apart and they're definitely multi-year NINOs. 1895-96 is only 0.02C away from being classified in my ENS ONI index, I think an El Nino may have occurred in this year, the reconstructed ENS ONI may be slightly dampened due to larger spread in this period (as is expected before 1950) even though it's very coherent, smooth, and consistent index over time. If 1895-96 was indeed an El Nino even if my index doesn't explicitly show it, this would actually mean there were 2 consecutive double NINOs that were just over 2 years apart! 1884-86 >>> 1887-89 is arguably multi-year another case that occurred within 3 years of each other.

The condensed list of examples and ones that are likely consecutive double NINOs that occurred within 9 years of each other but may not be depicted yet in my ENS ONI index due to large spread amongst available datasets and error in the historical reconstructions are as follows:

1968-70 >>> 1976-78
1913-15 >>> 1918-20
1899-01 >>> 1904-06
1895-97 >>> 1899-01
1884-86 >>> 1887-89

What you should immediately notice right off the bat is that almost all of these cases have occurred near the end 19th century and early 20th century, consequently also when solar activity was more comparable to today's levels thanks to solar cycle 24. While I do think the solar-ENSO relationships are poorly understood, I firmly believe ENSO harmonics are significantly modified by solar activity. While the cooler climate and contracted Hadley Cell certainly helped, I doubt it's just a coincidence that multi-year NINO frequency was higher about 100 years ago when solar activity was much lower, I don't think it's too surprising we could be looking at another one of these cases wherein we observe a pair of multi-year NINOs so close together.

Btw, a "harmonic" in wave dynamics in its most basic sense is really just an integer multiple of a wave. For example, if you were at the beach and there was a wave approaching you and every wave you could see breaking after that were evenly spaced apart, those other waves behind the wave hitting you would indeed be multiples of that wave. Therefore, you could be classify those following waves in the distance as harmonics of that first wave!

[LarryWx]

I don't know about that. Two year El Niños are quite uncommon. We did have 1986-88 and 2014-16, but most are just one year events.

They may not be common, but they aren't all that rare either. These are the ones I know about: 2014-6, 1986-8, 1939-42 (a triple!), 1913-5, 1904-6, 1887-9, and 1876-8. For the period 1870-1950, about 1/3 of El Ninos were muiltiyear. 1968-70 was so close to being a double but technically wasn't due to a very short break near +0.4. I'm not counting consecutive El Ninos like 1968-9/1969-70 and 1976-7/1977-8 as doubles.

What would be a rarity would be to have two multiples so close together. If there were to be a double 2018-20, that would mean two multiples just 4 years apart! Going back to
1865, there are none nearly that close together. The closest is 9 years apart. Now, when looking at consecutives and multiples, combined, the closest is only 3 years apart back in the 1880s. Perhaps what we'll end up with are consecutives for 2018-9 and 2019-20 rather than an actual double.

Due to the still pretty persistent solidly warm subsurface (though not as warm as earlier), I'm sticking with my prediction of delayed but not denied, a weak to moderate El Nino starting after the ASO trimonth for 2018-9. I think that that May Eurosip prediction of only warm neutral for ASO will be right after all. The actual number was near +0.35 with a full month of borderline weak not starting til October. That's near what I'm going with currently. We'll see though. June/July Eurosips both had about +0.5/barely a weak El Nino for ASO with the July Eurosip having the first full month of borderline weak El Nino starting in Sep instead of Oct.

Reality is much closer than 9 years for consecutive double NINOs if we make the definition for a multi-year NINO just a little more flexible and look more closely at the ENS ONI.
Here's the link to the ENS ONI again in case anyone needs a reminder: https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

I would probably classify 1976-78 as a double NINO which means there's only a 6 year break between 1968-70 & 1976-78. 1919-20 is very close to being classified in my ENS ONI index (only missed the criteria by 0.03C) and if so, this would mean there's at least one double NINO series that was only 3 years apart. 1899-01 >>> 1904-06 is only about 3.5 years apart and they're definitely multi-year NINOs. 1895-96 is only 0.02C away from being classified in my ENS ONI index, I think an El Nino may have occurred in this year, the reconstructed ENS ONI may be slightly dampened due to larger spread in this period (as is expected before 1950) even though it's very coherent, smooth, and consistent index over time. If 1895-96 was indeed an El Nino even if my index doesn't explicitly show it, this would actually mean there were 2 consecutive double NINOs that were just over 2 years apart! 1884-86 >>> 1887-89 is arguably multi-year another case that occurred within 3 years of each other.

The condensed list of examples and ones that are likely consecutive double NINOs that occurred within 9 years of each other but may not be depicted yet in my ENS ONI index due to large spread amongst available datasets and error in the historical reconstructions are as follows:

1968-70 >>> 1976-78
1913-15 >>> 1918-20
1899-01 >>> 1904-06
1895-97 >>> 1899-01
1884-86 >>> 1887-89

What you should immediately notice right off the bat is that almost all of these cases have occurred near the end 19th century and early 20th century, consequently also when solar activity was more comparable to today's levels thanks to solar cycle 24. While I do think the solar-ENSO relationships are poorly understood, I firmly believe ENSO harmonics are significantly modified by solar activity. While the cooler climate and contracted Hadley Cell certainly helped, I doubt it's just a coincidence that multi-year NINO frequency was higher about 100 years ago when solar activity was much lower, I don't think it's too surprising we could be looking at another one of these cases wherein we observe a pair of multi-year NINOs so close together.

Btw, a "harmonic" in wave dynamics in its most basic sense is really just an integer multiple of a wave. For example, if you were at the beach and there was a wave approaching you and every wave you could see breaking after that were evenly spaced apart, those other waves behind the wave hitting you would indeed be multiples of that wave. Therefore, you could be classify those following waves in the distance as harmonics of that first wave!

I don’t disagree with the main points you mentioned here. I was going by a strict definition of no break (based on NOAA for 1950+ and your tables for pre-1950) because a strict no break was what was already being discussed in the post I was responding to and I didn’t want to look like I was inflating the statistics. But is a short break in warm neutral that important? I agree with you likely not in the grand scheme of things. So, 1884-6, 1968-70 and 1976-8 were pretty much the equivalent of doubles even if technically not. By the way, I had for a long time thought 1900-01 was a weak El Niño but I didn’t mention it because your table technically had it as only warm neutral. So, I agree with including 1899-1901 and that 1895-7 as well as 1918-20 were at least close calls. In addition, wasn’t 1929-31 a close call?

Just to clarify, I was counting my years of separation differently from you in that I was counting the distance from the first year of the first multiple to the first year of the second multiple. So, I was counting as 9 years the separation between 1904-6 and 1913-5, for example. That in addition to being strict about no breaks was where I got my nine years from. I could have counted it as only 7 years and actually was originally going to do that, but I then decided to count it the way I mentioned. The most important thing is being consistent and we both were. Also, we both agree that multiples are not rare. That’s an interesting point you brought up about the sun. Maybe that will mean an increase in doubles over the next couple of decades? Also, I wonder when will be the next triple? The one and only triple we know of was way back in 1939-42 .

[Eric Webb]

They may not be common, but they aren't all that rare either. These are the ones I know about: 2014-6, 1986-8, 1939-42 (a triple!), 1913-5, 1904-6, 1887-9, and 1876-8. For the period 1870-1950, about 1/3 of El Ninos were muiltiyear. 1968-70 was so close to being a double but technically wasn't due to a very short break near +0.4. I'm not counting consecutive El Ninos like 1968-9/1969-70 and 1976-7/1977-8 as doubles.

What would be a rarity would be to have two multiples so close together. If there were to be a double 2018-20, that would mean two multiples just 4 years apart! Going back to
1865, there are none nearly that close together. The closest is 9 years apart. Now, when looking at consecutives and multiples, combined, the closest is only 3 years apart back in the 1880s. Perhaps what we'll end up with are consecutives for 2018-9 and 2019-20 rather than an actual double.

Due to the still pretty persistent solidly warm subsurface (though not as warm as earlier), I'm sticking with my prediction of delayed but not denied, a weak to moderate El Nino starting after the ASO trimonth for 2018-9. I think that that May Eurosip prediction of only warm neutral for ASO will be right after all. The actual number was near +0.35 with a full month of borderline weak not starting til October. That's near what I'm going with currently. We'll see though. June/July Eurosips both had about +0.5/barely a weak El Nino for ASO with the July Eurosip having the first full month of borderline weak El Nino starting in Sep instead of Oct.

Reality is much closer than 9 years for consecutive double NINOs if we make the definition for a multi-year NINO just a little more flexible and look more closely at the ENS ONI.
Here's the link to the ENS ONI again in case anyone needs a reminder: https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

I would probably classify 1976-78 as a double NINO which means there's only a 6 year break between 1968-70 & 1976-78. 1919-20 is very close to being classified in my ENS ONI index (only missed the criteria by 0.03C) and if so, this would mean there's at least one double NINO series that was only 3 years apart. 1899-01 >>> 1904-06 is only about 3.5 years apart and they're definitely multi-year NINOs. 1895-96 is only 0.02C away from being classified in my ENS ONI index, I think an El Nino may have occurred in this year, the reconstructed ENS ONI may be slightly dampened due to larger spread in this period (as is expected before 1950) even though it's very coherent, smooth, and consistent index over time. If 1895-96 was indeed an El Nino even if my index doesn't explicitly show it, this would actually mean there were 2 consecutive double NINOs that were just over 2 years apart! 1884-86 >>> 1887-89 is arguably multi-year another case that occurred within 3 years of each other.

The condensed list of examples and ones that are likely consecutive double NINOs that occurred within 9 years of each other but may not be depicted yet in my ENS ONI index due to large spread amongst available datasets and error in the historical reconstructions are as follows:

1968-70 >>> 1976-78
1913-15 >>> 1918-20
1899-01 >>> 1904-06
1895-97 >>> 1899-01
1884-86 >>> 1887-89

What you should immediately notice right off the bat is that almost all of these cases have occurred near the end 19th century and early 20th century, consequently also when solar activity was more comparable to today's levels thanks to solar cycle 24. While I do think the solar-ENSO relationships are poorly understood, I firmly believe ENSO harmonics are significantly modified by solar activity. While the cooler climate and contracted Hadley Cell certainly helped, I doubt it's just a coincidence that multi-year NINO frequency was higher about 100 years ago when solar activity was much lower, I don't think it's too surprising we could be looking at another one of these cases wherein we observe a pair of multi-year NINOs so close together.

Btw, a "harmonic" in wave dynamics in its most basic sense is really just an integer multiple of a wave. For example, if you were at the beach and there was a wave approaching you and every wave you could see breaking after that were evenly spaced apart, those other waves behind the wave hitting you would indeed be multiples of that wave. Therefore, you could be classify those following waves in the distance as harmonics of that first wave!

I don’t disagree with the main points you mentioned here. I was going by a strict definition of no break (based on NOAA for 1950+ and your tables for pre-1950) because a strict no break was what was already being discussed in the post I was responding to and I didn’t want to look like I was inflating the statistics. But is a short break in warm neutral that important? I agree with you likely not in the grand scheme of things. So, 1884-6, 1968-70 and 1976-8 were pretty much the equivalent of doubles even if technically not. By the way, I had for a long time thought 1900-01 was a weak El Niño but I didn’t mention it because your table technically had it as only warm neutral. So, I agree with including 1899-1901 and that 1895-7 as well as 1918-20 were at least close calls. In addition, wasn’t 1929-31 a close call?

Just to clarify, I was counting my years of separation differently from you in that I was counting the distance from the first year of the first multiple to the first year of the second multiple. So, I was counting as 9 years the separation between 1904-6 and 1913-5, for example. That in addition to being strict about no breaks was where I got my nine years from. I could have counted it as only 7 years and actually was originally going to do that, but I then decided to count it the way I mentioned. The most important thing is being consistent and we both were. Also, we both agree that multiples are not rare. That’s an interesting point you brought up about the sun. Maybe that will mean an increase in doubles over the next couple of decades? Also, I wonder when will be the next triple? The one and only triple we know of was way back in 1939-42 .

I personally don't like to use the CPC definition as much because it's way too strict, especially for weak ENSO events in the early part of the record. The original ONI definition that was created by Trenberth & Hoar back in 1997 is likely better for capturing these borderline NINOs like what we're probably gonna see this year. Go to the link I attached in my first response.

[LarryWx]

Reality is much closer than 9 years for consecutive double NINOs if we make the definition for a multi-year NINO just a little more flexible and look more closely at the ENS ONI.
Here's the link to the ENS ONI again in case anyone needs a reminder: https://www.webberweather.com/ensemble-oceanic-nino-index.html

I would probably classify 1976-78 as a double NINO which means there's only a 6 year break between 1968-70 & 1976-78. 1919-20 is very close to being classified in my ENS ONI index (only missed the criteria by 0.03C) and if so, this would mean there's at least one double NINO series that was only 3 years apart. 1899-01 >>> 1904-06 is only about 3.5 years apart and they're definitely multi-year NINOs. 1895-96 is only 0.02C away from being classified in my ENS ONI index, I think an El Nino may have occurred in this year, the reconstructed ENS ONI may be slightly dampened due to larger spread in this period (as is expected before 1950) even though it's very coherent, smooth, and consistent index over time. If 1895-96 was indeed an El Nino even if my index doesn't explicitly show it, this would actually mean there were 2 consecutive double NINOs that were just over 2 years apart! 1884-86 >>> 1887-89 is arguably multi-year another case that occurred within 3 years of each other.

The condensed list of examples and ones that are likely consecutive double NINOs that occurred within 9 years of each other but may not be depicted yet in my ENS ONI index due to large spread amongst available datasets and error in the historical reconstructions are as follows:

1968-70 >>> 1976-78
1913-15 >>> 1918-20
1899-01 >>> 1904-06
1895-97 >>> 1899-01
1884-86 >>> 1887-89

What you should immediately notice right off the bat is that almost all of these cases have occurred near the end 19th century and early 20th century, consequently also when solar activity was more comparable to today's levels thanks to solar cycle 24. While I do think the solar-ENSO relationships are poorly understood, I firmly believe ENSO harmonics are significantly modified by solar activity. While the cooler climate and contracted Hadley Cell certainly helped, I doubt it's just a coincidence that multi-year NINO frequency was higher about 100 years ago when solar activity was much lower, I don't think it's too surprising we could be looking at another one of these cases wherein we observe a pair of multi-year NINOs so close together.

Btw, a "harmonic" in wave dynamics in its most basic sense is really just an integer multiple of a wave. For example, if you were at the beach and there was a wave approaching you and every wave you could see breaking after that were evenly spaced apart, those other waves behind the wave hitting you would indeed be multiples of that wave. Therefore, you could be classify those following waves in the distance as harmonics of that first wave!

I don’t disagree with the main points you mentioned here. I was going by a strict definition of no break (based on NOAA for 1950+ and your tables for pre-1950) because a strict no break was what was already being discussed in the post I was responding to and I didn’t want to look like I was inflating the statistics. But is a short break in warm neutral that important? I agree with you likely not in the grand scheme of things. So, 1884-6, 1968-70 and 1976-8 were pretty much the equivalent of doubles even if technically not. By the way, I had for a long time thought 1900-01 was a weak El Niño but I didn’t mention it because your table technically had it as only warm neutral. So, I agree with including 1899-1901 and that 1895-7 as well as 1918-20 were at least close calls. In addition, wasn’t 1929-31 a close call?

Just to clarify, I was counting my years of separation differently from you in that I was counting the distance from the first year of the first multiple to the first year of the second multiple. So, I was counting as 9 years the separation between 1904-6 and 1913-5, for example. That in addition to being strict about no breaks was where I got my nine years from. I could have counted it as only 7 years and actually was originally going to do that, but I then decided to count it the way I mentioned. The most important thing is being consistent and we both were. Also, we both agree that multiples are not rare. That’s an interesting point you brought up about the sun. Maybe that will mean an increase in doubles over the next couple of decades? Also, I wonder when will be the next triple? The one and only triple we know of was way back in 1939-42 .

I personally don't like to use the CPC definition as much because it's way too strict, especially for weak ENSO events in the early part of the record. The original ONI definition that was created by Trenberth & Hoar back in 1997 is likely better for capturing these borderline NINOs like what we're probably gonna see this year. Go to the link I attached in my first response.

Interesting. I was unaware of “the Trenberth and Hoar (1997) definition of ENSO, wherein NINO 3.4 region SST anomalies must exceed +/-0.4C for 6 successive tri-monthly periods to be classified as El Nino or La Nina event.” I had been aware of only the current NOAA used 5 successive trimonthlies of +/-0.5C. I see the differences in these tables of yours as regards determine Niño/Niña events vs the ones of yours I’ve been using for pre-1950. For consistency reasons, I don’t know that I’m going to abandon using your older tables though for pre-1950. Also, I still prefer to use NOAA for 1950+ simply because they seem to be the most widely used tables for 1950+ in discussions here and elsewhere.

[Kingarabian]

Possible WWB coming up on the GFS:



Lol maybe scratch that. I don't know what's going on with the GFS here:

[CyclonicFury]

I think what will determine whether we get El Niño or not this fall is whether we see a new subsurface warm pool develop soon. The current subsurface warm pool has taken a hit and a weak cold pool has formed below the warm pool. The warming of Niño 3.4 should be gradual, not rapid like the CFSv2 model suggests.

Looking back to 2014/15, the CPC did not declare El Niño until March 2015 when we were seeing persistent +0.5C Niño 3.4 values and the atmospheric patterns resembled El Niño. Since we are still yet to see a single official Niño 3.4 +0.5C reading I do not expect El Niño declaration in the near future. The atmospheric ENSO indicators are not there yet either, with the SOI near Neutral and the ESPI remaining weakly negative.

[hamburgerman7070]

I think if we can get any type of niño for fall/winter, that would be a win in my book. Perhaps a better chance at a good winter.

[NDG]

As I thought, Nino 3.4 cooled down some last week, Nino 3 with the biggest drop from last week.

Nino 3.4 +0.3C
Nino 3 +0.3C
Nino 4 +0.3C
Nino 1+2 -0.3C

[cycloneye]

CPC weekly update of 7/30/18 has Niño 3.4 cooling a little bit to +0.3C.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/a ... ts-web.pdf