Stories like the one in the Washington Post are the kind that's driving meteorologists and climatologists crazy. Within the group I am a part of, there have been several discussion threads about how the media is treating (hyping) this event. The group felt that the article by Bob Henson (link at the top) is probably the most accurate summary to date.
Below is a copy/paste of a comment by Dr John Monteverdi (retired meteorology professor - San Francisco State) who is one of the site administrators who sums up the frustration:
Imagine a well-informed person reading the Washington Post article on the upcoming warm ENSO event. That person would see this graphic that is mostly unexplained, except by the heading "Super El NiΓ±o" and the two indicated years. They would think they were now informed about the comparison between the consensus forecast and some extreme event in the 19th century. However, that person would not know that 19th century sea surface temperature anomalies were obtained by estimate using the (literally) bucket measurements of ocean temperatures. Those measurements were not standardized by depth or instrument. It's not that those estimates are without value, but they should be used as an indication not a firm estimate of the values. That person would not know that not only was the 2026 pattern shown here is not a firm deterministic forecast, but one of the most extreme solutions from a model that has been shown to overestimate SST temperatures. Finally, the article has the feeling of "truth" and capturing the pulse of the professional opinions on the upcoming event. That person would not realize that not even the term "Super El NiΓ±o" exists as a real term. Perhaps in the future, but not yet. That future may bring us a pattern that is close to the most extreme solution, but it certainly is not the consensus solution as of May 14, 2026.
View attachment 184287
