Gavin, you're probably aware of this, if you're planning to analyse the ECM ensemble for winter 2016/17, but in case you're not, it might be of interest:
http://www.ecmwf.int/en/about/media-centre/news/2015/why-quasi-biennial-oscillation-matters
It dates from last year, but has suddenly become relevant in light of the QBO's sudden unexpected behaviour.
Although the basic physics of the QBO is well known, the quantitative details and balances of the different processes are still rather unclear. Worse, many of the models used for numerical weather prediction (NWP) or climate modelling are unable to produce a QBO, or they produce a QBO which looks very different from observations. For example, only 4 of more than 30 models used for the last IPCC report have any sort of QBO.
At ECMWF, the IFS does have sufficient vertical resolution and physics to allow a reasonable simulation of the QBO, for example as seen in ECMWF’s ERA-20CM, a set of extended model runs covering the 20th century. Our seasonal forecasts also have skill in predicting the future evolution of the QBO signal. However, we would like to improve the accuracy and skill of the IFS, so we are working with other members of the international scientific community to better understand and model the processes driving the QBO.
What I'd take from that statement is that the ECM would be one of very few models worth taking seriously for this winter, and even then you wouldn't want to set too much store by it.
Originally Posted by: some faraway beach