RE: ENSO predictions
Your "opposite rule" sounds smart on an initial take, but when reading farther, it doesn't sound very persuasive or scientific. First, since when can you base a rule on a single case? That is very risky indeed. In 2003-04, the ENSO situaiton was neutral, as you said. In 2004-05 there was a weak El Nino, which would normally lead to a forecast for a tilt of the odds toward above normal rainfall during the winter of 2004-05 in southern California. That is indeed what happened, as rainfall was plentiful during December 2004 and January and February 2005. It makes sense. I don't know why the local water experts would sy that there would not be a full lake level in our lifetimes in Lake Arrowhead. How would they be able to come up with a precipitation forecast going out years in advance? It sounds like a statement made in a very pessimistic frame of mind, not an objective statement. Getting back to your "opposte rule", what is your forecast for this winter? A poor rainfall result this winter despite the El Nino? And a healthy rainy season next winter (2016-17) when there is a chance for La Nina?