ENSO Updates (2007 thru 2023)

[WeatherEmperor]

Modoki...

Need la nina values at 1+2 for there to be a true Modoki event.

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

[NDG]

Modoki...

Need la nina values at 1+2 for there to be a true Modoki event.

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Where do you guys get what the buoys are currently measuring data on Nino 1+2, I don't see that any of the TAO buoys have been working during the past few weeks in that area.

[Kingarabian]

Need la nina values at 1+2 for there to be a true Modoki event.

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Where do you guys get what the buoys are currently measuring data on Nino 1+2, I don't see that any of the TAO buoys have been working during the past few weeks in that area.

CPC

[Ntxw]

Modoki...

Need la nina values at 1+2 for there to be a true Modoki event.

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Accurate SST anomalies is subjective. An anomaly is based on climatology and different sources has different climatology. Whether what base years is used or modifications, there really is no such thing as an "accurate anomaly". What isn't subjective is the actual temperatures of the ocean.

[Kingarabian]

Need la nina values at 1+2 for there to be a true Modoki event.

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Accurate SST anomalies is subjective. An anomaly is based on climatology and different sources has different climatology. Whether what base years is used or modifications, there really is no such thing as an "accurate anomaly". What isn't subjective is the actual temperatures of the ocean.

And the buoys are actual temperatures of the ocean, right?

[NDG]

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Where do you guys get what the buoys are currently measuring data on Nino 1+2, I don't see that any of the TAO buoys have been working during the past few weeks in that area.

CPC

I would really like to see the actual buoy information but I don't see they provide that.

[Kingarabian]

Where do you guys get what the buoys are currently measuring data on Nino 1+2, I don't see that any of the TAO buoys have been working during the past few weeks in that area.

CPC

I would really like to see the actual buoy information but I don't see they provide that.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Some buoys are still active near Nino 1+2.

[NDG]

CPC

I would really like to see the actual buoy information but I don't see they provide that.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Some buoys are still active near Nino 1+2.

The majority of them nearest to Niño 1+2 have not been working for weeks, so there is no buoy data as a proof to say that satellite estimates are wrong.

[Ntxw]

More important than that, accurate sst anomaly maps should be used. The satellite estimate map NDG posted shows sst anomalies that are slightly lower than the real buoy measured values...which dont resemble Modoki in the least.


Sent from my iPhone 7 using Tapatalk

Accurate SST anomalies is subjective. An anomaly is based on climatology and different sources has different climatology. Whether what base years is used or modifications, there really is no such thing as an "accurate anomaly". What isn't subjective is the actual temperatures of the ocean.

And the buoys are actual temperatures of the ocean, right?

They all measure actual temperatures, it's the agency or site that applies a certain base set for anomalies. In general I would trust the buoys more as long as they are functioning properly because satellites have to see through a lot of smoke from way up. Clouds, moisture, etc all can be problematic for an accurate reading.

Just more emphasis of funding for data in the vast expanse of the Pacific.

[Kingarabian]

I would really like to see the actual buoy information but I don't see they provide that.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Some buoys are still active near Nino 1+2.

The majority of them nearest to Niño 1+2 have not been working for weeks, so there is no buoy data as a proof to say that satellite estimates are wrong.

Well somehow, they derived those numbers whether there is public data or not. I wouldn't doubt them simply because they've been doing this for a long time. And I can count 2 buoys that are active near Nino 1+2, don't need much more.

[weathaguyry]

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/

Some buoys are still active near Nino 1+2.

The majority of them nearest to Niño 1+2 have not been working for weeks, so there is no buoy data as a proof to say that satellite estimates are wrong.

Well somehow, they derived those numbers whether there is public data or not. I wouldn't doubt them simply because they've been doing this for a long time. And I can count 2 buoys that are active near Nino 1+2, don't need much more.

I would think that there should be more than 2 buoys active in the Nino 1+2 regions to create an accurate temperature reading for the region, I would rather rely on Satellite data as opposed to 2 buoys. Although maybe there are some buoys that are not public, so maybe the data is derived from there? Still, a lot of uncertainty.

[Kingarabian]

The majority of them nearest to Niño 1+2 have not been working for weeks, so there is no buoy data as a proof to say that satellite estimates are wrong.

Well somehow, they derived those numbers whether there is public data or not. I wouldn't doubt them simply because they've been doing this for a long time. And I can count 2 buoys that are active near Nino 1+2, don't need much more.

I would think that there should be more than 2 buoys active in the Nino 1+2 regions to create an accurate temperature reading for the region, I would rather rely on Satellite data as opposed to 2 buoys. Although maybe there are some buoys that are not public, so maybe the data is derived from there? Still, a lot of uncertainty.

You would rely on satellite data despite their recent massive discrepencies in ALL nino regions that lasted for nearly 2 weeks straight? If I'm a forecaster, tasked with making sound predictions, I would want the data that is most sound and truthful. The fact is that satellite estimates are useful and helpful when working right. But they've had periods of head scratching inaccuracies the past couple of years.

[Ntxw]

The majority of them nearest to Niño 1+2 have not been working for weeks, so there is no buoy data as a proof to say that satellite estimates are wrong.

Well somehow, they derived those numbers whether there is public data or not. I wouldn't doubt them simply because they've been doing this for a long time. And I can count 2 buoys that are active near Nino 1+2, don't need much more.

I would think that there should be more than 2 buoys active in the Nino 1+2 regions to create an accurate temperature reading for the region, I would rather rely on Satellite data as opposed to 2 buoys. Although maybe there are some buoys that are not public, so maybe the data is derived from there? Still, a lot of uncertainty.

You would think there would be more yes, but because there is lack of funding for something so vital which is the argument many have made. There are more than just the buoys as ONI is derived from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Oceanic Atmospheric Data) which uses ship observations, including fishing boats, as well as the buoys and not the satellites. While satellites are a good complementary tool, actual readings near or at the surface is still the preferred data by the CPC

[NDG]

One thing for sure is that Nino 1+2 has cooled down over the past month whether the satellites are overdoing their cooling or not.

From this week's CPC ENSO update:

[cycloneye]

 https://twitter.com/MJVentrice/status/870966999337361409

[cycloneye]

 https://twitter.com/MJVentrice/status/870972237897244673

[LarryWx]

The latest guidance suggests most of the next 10+ days of -SOI thanks to a mostly higher than avg Darwin SLP. Though it will drop back some the next 1-2 days, guidance suggests it will then rise back and even go higher by 1-1.5 mb during 6/7-11 vs where it has been the last few days. However, most of the next 10 days will supposedly have higher Tahiti SLP's vs today's. So, these 2 will largely cancel each other. But we're starting from a solidly -SOI.

My guess: SOI rises back toward 0 the next couple of days (it may go barely +SOI for a day or so) before going back to -SOI through ~6/11. Then maybe a rise just after.

[tolakram]

SOI has only briefly moved beyond the -7 nino indicator.

[Kingarabian]

The latest guidance suggests most of the next 10+ days of -SOI thanks to a mostly higher than avg Darwin SLP. Though it will drop back some the next 1-2 days, guidance suggests it will then rise back and even go higher by 1-1.5 mb during 6/7-11 vs where it has been the last few days. However, most of the next 10 days will supposedly have higher Tahiti SLP's vs today's. So, these 2 will largely cancel each other. But we're starting from a solidly -SOI.

My guess: SOI rises back toward 0 the next couple of days (it may go barely +SOI for a day or so) before going back to -SOI through ~6/11. Then maybe a rise just after.

Even if Tahiti has slightly higher pressures over Darwin's, it usually counts for a drop. I'm thinking it'll simply tank hard for the next week and then level off. Followed by another drop in the long range. All in all, it looks like we wont see easterlies for the most of June.

[LarryWx]

The latest guidance suggests most of the next 10+ days of -SOI thanks to a mostly higher than avg Darwin SLP. Though it will drop back some the next 1-2 days, guidance suggests it will then rise back and even go higher by 1-1.5 mb during 6/7-11 vs where it has been the last few days. However, most of the next 10 days will supposedly have higher Tahiti SLP's vs today's. So, these 2 will largely cancel each other. But we're starting from a solidly -SOI.

My guess: SOI rises back toward 0 the next couple of days (it may go barely +SOI for a day or so) before going back to -SOI through ~6/11. Then maybe a rise just after.

Even if Tahiti has slightly higher pressures over Darwin's, it usually counts for a drop. I'm thinking it'll simply tank hard for the next week and then level off. Followed by another drop in the long range. All in all, it looks like we wont see easterlies for the most of June.

Despite the mainly -SOI over the next 10+ days, I see almost no way that the SOI won't rise back some tomorrow and maybe also the next day before it falls back.

The high Darwin SLP's being forecasted for 6/7-11 (1014+) are what are typically seen on many June+ days in a developing Niño. So, that will be well worth monitoring. I'd call
Tahiti averaging neutral rather than pro-Niño low over the next 10 days.
If this combo of high Darwin SLP & neutral Tahiti SLP were to be the theme over the next few months, I'd think it would favor a weakish Niño forming.