Couple of quick points: 1. With regard to subjectivity in selecting criteria for analog forecasts, how is this any different from the subjective determinations made in developing numerical models? Sure, there are many different ways one can construct an analog forecast technique, but there are just as many ways one can construct a dynamical model. Various approaches in each camp use common starting points: the former looking at physically relevant observed (potential) boundary conditions, the latter at numerical integration of the only equations known to govern the coupled system. 2. Any statistical forecasting system uses the same premise as an analog technique, namely, using empirical relationships between potential predictors and the predictand. So to differentiate between 'advanced' statistical methods and analogs is a non sequitur. Any of the complaints raised against analogs here could just as well be applied to any other statistical technique. While the author may not have been implicating all statistical techniques, that is an implicit takeaway. The forecast plume the author developed using limited time and computer resources compares rather well to the spread- and PDF-corrected plume from the CFSv2 from earlier in the month: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images1/nino34SeaadjPDFSPRDC.gif So in attempting to dissuade the reader from believing analog methods, the author shows that they are actually pretty darn good! If any forecast model showed a plume like that for the next 15 months or so, we'd be very happy indeed.