Agreed re: the more classic forcing/walker configuration this go around. The question is, in my opinion, is there still enough interference present to cause problems w/ the older analogs, considering that the IO subsidence is still relatively weaker now than it was in the 19th century? I suspect this may explain why the Niño/stagnant connective forcing has a wider periphery vs 1997-98 and 1982-83, and why Niño4 has warmed relatively faster over the last 20yrs versus Niño3. I've also looked at AMO/IO relationship, and I believe it to be another chicken-egg problem? My statistical conclusion is that the IO/PAC appears to lead the AMO by a year or so, at least on the resolution we're looking at. l could be wrong but I'm skeptical that the NATL tail can wag the tropical dog. Do you have any thoughts on this? That's impressive! Where do you think this Niño tops at? From my perspective, it's dumbfounding to see what ERSST4 has become. There are all sorts of inhomogeneities in that dataset which should be obvious/easy to correct for, both short and long term, in my opinion. It's not my place to make accusations like this, as I don't have the knowledge to do so, but I suspect political pressure is part of the equation.