Me: " The ENSO Elephant is not yet fully grasped."
PaulP: "That's an argument of Appeal to Authority mixed in with Appeal To Complexity."
Those two fallacies are mutually exclusive. An argument must specifically endorse an Authority to be such, like "based on NOAA...". As for Appeal to Complexity, that fallacy requires all arguments to be conflated as equally hopeless.
In fact, I am strongly favoring a specific argument that ENSO-QBO science is hypercomplex multi-chaos combined from various causal factors validated, with Helmholtz resonances hypothesized as dominant, with partial tidal forcings and excitations included.
Thanks for carefully accounting for the many specific details offered here in explanation. Its not just saying "Elephant" or "Chaos" anymore than saying "punting".
A particular insight is that the Tidal and Helmholtz harmonics would preferentially resonate together at specific shared frequencies, if you want to relate these two aspects.
Also, one can either predict stability statistics of a dynamical system with Lyapunov exponents, to then compare with real-world data, or use data to estimate Lyapunov exponents. The NOAA, Princeton, Columbia team are simply applying standard dynamical system math to ENSO.
There is no dishonor if you self-publish your ENSO-QBO science without formal peer review approval, if it nevertheless is correct, original, and significant. Many of the greatest science ideas were published so.