I applaud your efforts to communicate the developing El Niño and its possible impacts into the public eye. However, I am deeply concerned with the wanton naming of ENSO events. Naming El Niño events presents a magnificent distraction and promotes confusion. There are already several names being tossed around by various government groups; how is the layperson supposed to know that the same phenomenon is being referred to? Hurricanes are named according to a set of agreed upon rules, but I see none of these being applied to the case in point. Do you plan to name every El Niño (and La Niña) event since the formation of the Pacific Ocean ~750 million years ago? That is going to be hard to keep track of! I would suggest sticking to current meteorological conventions and maintain references to ENSO events by the years in which they occurred, i.e., 1982/83. Now, if you can substantiate via copious peer-reviewed literature, a reason for breaking the convection, that naming events helps broaden public understanding of physical processes, for example. I am all for naming them. One last thought, by naming ENSO events, this NOAA blog directly contradicts the official NOAA National Weather Service statement that the NWS does not name winter storms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_storm_naming_in_the_United_States). Applying the same reasoning to ENSO phases appears logical. Naming winter storms or ENSO phases does not correspond to the set of rules applied to hurricanes, so why should it be acceptable to do so here? Thank you for addressing my concerns.