tolakram wrote:Kingarabian wrote:NotSparta wrote:
That's not going to be good for the Bejerknes feedback
We're going to need more than just this trade burst to disrupt the progress already made. And it's not abnormal to see occasional trade bursts in El Nino events.
We were here last year, almost the same types of calls.
Not picking on you, just noting that at this point is seems the atmosphere is not fully coupled and we have trade bursts predicted. There's a lot of warm water out there but El Nino looked like a pretty safe bet this time last year.
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=92137&start=7860#p2579878More cool on that map than this year, does it mean anything? I still feel like we're 15 or so days away from the Aha! moment.
My bias is simple, I don't think we have a clue yet.
I respectfully disagree when it comes to the status of the indicators now vs. 2017.
There has been a much stronger ocean response:
We've had
three moderate-strong downwelling Kelvin waves this year at this time compared to only one moderate downwelling Kelvin wave in 2017.
There has been a much stronger atmosphere response:
1. The MJO has spent most of its time in the "El Nino phases" and also amplifying the most in these phases (hence why we've had three downwelling Kelvin waves since January).
2. We've seen numerous potent WWB events since February. I believe there was only one significant WWB in all of 2017.
The PMM has been historically positive. +PMM favors El Nino's. Also for all its warmth over the Nino regions, the Pacific SST configuration we had last year in fact did not favor an El Nino compared to the way the current SST configuration does. The last piece of the puzzle is the SOI. In the majority of El Nino events, the month of May came in negative. So far it's on track to do so.
But your bias is completely fine and it is the safest route, and we have the luxury to go with our hunch. But I believe for professional forecasters who have to make a decision, they look at specific indicators noted above.