General AGW debate thread

[BethesdaWX]

I felt that since alot of the threads elsewhere are being derailed unintentionally, it'd be a good thing to start a General AGW debate thread to cover the issues that flare in other threads.

I'll start with the failure of computer models, and the Solar Magnetic Flux and 10/BE concentration, and its correlation to the climate

http://www.friendsof...tml#Correlation

Only 2 of the 23 models used by the IPCC account for varying Sun intensity, and these models do not assume the Sun affects the cosmic ray flux and cloud formation. Only 2 of the models account for land use changes.

Computer models predict warming at the north and south poles to be symmetrical, but there is a warming trend at the North Pole but not at the South Pole. They also predict that the polar surface regions will warm more than the surface at the tropics. Winter temperatures will warm more than summer temperatures; night-time temperatures will warm more than day-time temperatures. Therefore, according to the CO2 warming theory, winter nights in the arctic will warm, but there will be little summer day time warming in the tropics.

While air temperature may fluctuate from year to year as heat is transferred between the air and oceans, if CO2 is causing global warming by the IPCC hypothesis, the ocean heat content must increase monotonically provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. Ocean heat content is a much more robust metric than surface air temperature for assessing global climate change because the ocean's heat capacity is greater than that of the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6 m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! According the IPCC models, all major feedbacks are positive so there is no mechanism that would allow the heat content of the Earth to decline

[skierinvermont]

second chart is outdated.

HadAT and RAOBCORE have been replaced by RICH and RAOBCORE v1.4 which show general agreement with models

From John Chirsty of UAH:

So where does that leave us? An "Executive Summary" by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, co-authored by John Christy of UAH concludes:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming.

This significant discrepancy no longer

exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.

While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.

This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models,

from errors in the observational data sets,

or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open."

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

[BethesdaWX]

Ok thanks. I hope to debate appropriately here.

Now, lets move onto something not out-dated We can see there is a correlation from the Solar Magnetic Flux (Sunspots Can't compared directly to Global Temperature), and the 10/BE concentrations, which reflect GCR impact.

1) One of the Errors constantly Made is Comparing TSI to Global temperatures; It cannot be done. Almost all of the energy transmited from the Sun to the Atmosphere is done electromagnetically, and only certain aspects of the Sun/Solar Cycle can attribute this in a large scale fashion. Looking at the total Magnetic Flux & 10/BE concentrations is a necessity, and this is where we see the correlations. The Base of the TMF reveals the increase fairly well, with a peak in Late 90's, although still very high in the 2000's until the recent intracycle solar min.

2) Other Misconceptions are that the solar minimum (intracycle) that we're Experiencing now should create significant cooling. This is simply not the case. We see Solar Minimums every 11yrs, and there cannot be any large impact in a 1-3yr activity lull.

I hope to eventually debate all the aspects of AGW, there is just so much I have to say, it will take me 1 month to write it all.

[BethesdaWX]

Other aspects of Solar/Atmosperic interactions revolve around the Magnetic Field of the Earth Itself.

http://www.megakastr..._modulation.htm

The following sequence of figures shows the change of the magnetic field intensity over the last 400 years derived from IGRF [http://swdcwww.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/igrf/anime/index.html], along with the NMP movement map shown previously. The overall intensity of the magnetic field has decreased. In 1600 there was a more distinct intensity over northern Canada. Over the centuries this has weakened, while increasing over the last century in northern Siberia. As the field intensity increases in Siberia and decreases in Canada, the north magnetic pole moves across the arctic from Canada towards Siberia.

Since 1600, the magnetic field has weakened considerably. Since the mid 1800's, it has weakened an astonishing 10-15%

Most of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region, which extends typically less than 20° in latitude from the magnetic pole. The total voltage across the polar cap can be as large as 100,000 volts, rivaling that of thunderstorm electrification of the planet in magnitude. This polar cap electric field is the major source of largescale horizontal voltage differences in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dynamic polar region accounts for a large fraction of the variability inherent in our upper atmosphere, variability due to chaotic changes in the solar wind magnetic field that produces large-scale restructuring of the cavity enclosing the Earth’s magnetic field. This restructuring visibly manifests itself most clearly in the production of ionized plasmas and the associated distribution of aurora high over the north and south polar regions. In turn, the Earth’s lower atmosphere (that part responsible for weather phenomena) undergoes variations in composition and dynamics influenced by these coupling effects through a complex and as yet not fully understood feedback system. [http://www.arcus.org/logistics/svalbard/Svalbard.pdf]

“Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are eruptions into interplanetary space of as much as a few billion tons of plasma and embedded magnetic fields from the Sun's corona. ... The exact processes involved in the release of CMEs are not known. CMEs can occur at any time during the solar cycle, but their occurrence rate increases with increasing solar activity and peaks around solar maximum. ... Fast CMEs --those traveling faster than the ambient solar wind-- are responsible for triggering large, nonrecurrent geomagnetic storms when they encounter the Earth's magnetosphere. Such storms can result from the passage either of the CME itself or of the shock created by the fast CME's interaction with the slower-moving solar wind. The majority of large and major geomagnetic storms are generated by the encounter with both the interplanetary shock and the CME that drives it. The "geoeffectiveness" of CMEs --i.e., their ability to disturb the Earth's magnetosphere-- is a function of their speed, the strength of their magnetic field, and the presence of a strong southward magnetic field component.” [http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/cme.html].

2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: “Once Again About Global Warming and Solar Activity”, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf]) states: “We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.” The study examined the geoeffectiveness of coronal mass ejections (CME) separated into two types – magnetic cloud (MC) and non-MC CMEs (CME), and coronal holes (CH). “when speaking about the influence of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity” The following figures are from their study.

The following figures show the global average temperature from 1850 – 2008 (left) [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/], and (right) the total solar magnetic flux (black line bounding grey shading and blue line) along with the annual sunspot number (shaded purple). The solar figure is from M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild: “A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years”, Nature Vol. 399, 3 June 1999 [http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html]) which states: “The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.”

The following figure superimposes the global temperature (from above left – changed to red) on the solar flux (from above right).

The following figure shows the change in global cosmic ray flux (GCR) from four independent proxies (left) showing the decrease in GCR throughout the 1900s. [http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf] The right-hand figure compares the same data with the solar magnetic flux from above, showing the strong inverse correlation between the solar magnetic flux and the cosmic ray flux. The figures above and below indicate a strong correlation between the solar magnetic flux, the cosmic ray flux, and the global temperatures.

The following figures show global average temperature (left) and the average change in motion of the North Magnetic Pole (right) as shown previously. The next figure below combines these two, with the North Magnetic Pole data changed to red. There is a clear correlation between the rate of change of the North Magnetic Pole location and the global temperature.

The following figure shows the correspondence between the changing magnetic field in the Arctic and Arctic temperatures. The magnetic field is shown for Hudson Bay (blue), Siberia (green) and the average (red) and compared with the Arctic average temperature anomalies (maroon). [http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif]

A recent paper (Daniel Johnston: “An Alternative View of Global Warming” May 2008 [http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf] provides the following figure. He developed a prediction model for predicting the temperature anomaly as a function of the magnetic field. Each frame shows the magnetic field strength at two stations (black and purple) along with the temperature anomaly for the latitude band (red) and the temperature predicted from the magnetic data for the two stations (light blue and dark blue). (Magnetic field strength data comes from http://www.wdc.bgs.ac.uk/)

A 2009 paper (Adrian Kerton: “Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection”, Energy & Environment, Vol 20, 2009 [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00005] states: “Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate.”

[Clifford]

2) Other Misconceptions are that the solar minimum (intracycle) that we're Experiencing now should create significant cooling. This is simply not the case. We see Solar Minimums every 11yrs, and there cannot be any large impact in a 1-3yr activity lull.

I've wondered a lot about that.

Obviously the sun has gone through the 11 yr solar cycles for at least as long as we can study, and they may be associated with a slight warming/cooling.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if we have a cooling of 1/2 degree during a 3 yr minimum, followed by increased solar activity, and warming, then the drop is quickly reversed, whereas if we had a 20 year minimum, the temperature reduction might be additive.

However, perhaps there are additional components.

For example, in a typical solar minimum, cosmic rays might compensate a bit for low solar activity. Whereas, in a weak solar cycle, the cosmic rays might be reduced... so one gets ore of an impact of the weak cycle.

Or, perhaps there would be a timing issue in which the earth could buffer a 2-year minimum, but not a 10 year minimum.

I'm still pondering why the TSI currently seems to be so out of sync with sunspots.

I'll post some musings about the Mt Wilson Observatory, and the MPSI and MWSI under the Solar section shortly.

[salbers]

I think the TSI variation in the 11 year cycle should account for roughly 0.1C global temperature variation. The TSI might vary just as much from faculae (positively) as from sunspots (negatively). Also some ultraviolet variability that is more than the visible percentage wise.

[BethesdaWX]

I think the TSI variation in the 11 year cycle should account for roughly 0.1C global temperature variation. The TSI might vary just as much from faculae (positively) as from sunspots (negatively). Also some ultraviolet variability that is more than the visible percentage wise.

Could be, its about what we've seen to this point actually (on UAH/RSS, not using GISS), since the minimum really got going in 2007, we've had the drop.

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011..............2008 & 2011 both colder years, 2009 was cool until El Nino kicked in midway through, 2010 was a raging El Nino with the +PDO/+AMO.

So aside from the El Nino in 2010, we've had about 0.1C drop.

[skierinvermont]

Could be, its about what we've seen to this point actually (on UAH/RSS, not using GISS), since the minimum really got going in 2007, we've had the drop.

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011..............2008 & 2011 both colder years, 2009 was cool until El Nino kicked in midway through, 2010 was a raging El Nino with the +PDO/+AMO.

So aside from the El Nino in 2010, we've had about 0.1C drop.

Yep. If you take out all the Ninos and only look at the Ninas, things tend to be cooler. Amazing.

The ENSO corrected trend since 2002 is +.06C/decade.

[nzucker]

Yep. If you take out all the Ninos and only look at the Ninas, things tend to be cooler. Amazing.

The ENSO corrected trend since 2002 is +.06C/decade.

Of course the need for ENSO correction is debatable since -PDO periods tend to average more La Niña.

[skierinvermont]

Of course the need for ENSO correction is debatable since -PDO periods tend to average more La Niña.

No it's not debatable. -PDO periods average slightly more -ENSO than +PDO (about -.15C vs +.15C). By removing all of the Ninos, we are left with an ONI average of -.5 or even -1C which is just silly.

The ONI trend from 2002-2030 might be expected to be -.05C/decade due to the -PDO. Whereas the ONI trend 2002-present is more like -.5C/decade. More than an order of magnitude of difference. By not correcting for ENSO, you would be extrapolating ONI trends into the future which will not occur. It is in no way representative of the underlying trend.

[nzucker]

No it's not debatable. -PDO periods average slightly more -ENSO than +PDO (about -.015C vs +.015C). By removing all of the Ninos, we are left with an ONI average of -.5 or even -1C which is just silly.

Yeah obviously removing all El Niños makes no sense either so Bethesda's analysis is extreme. Even strong -PDO periods like the 60s/early 70s had their exceptions such as the multi-year Niño in 68-69/69-70 and the record strong event in 72-73.

Wouldn't be surprised if we see a long Niña, though, right now. Conditions seem pretty primed.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah obviously removing all El Niños makes no sense either so Bethesda's analysis is extreme. Even strong -PDO periods like the 60s/early 70s had their exceptions such as the multi-year Niño in 68-69/69-70 and the record strong event in 72-73.

Wouldn't be surprised if we see a long Niña, though, right now. Conditions seem pretty primed.

Andrew is Lying about me again, pathetic.

I'm not removing ENSO at all. You can't do that, period, because the atmosphere will respond to each ENSO phase differently based on strength, basis, etc.............GLAAM /MEI reflect the atmospheric signal, -NAO coincides the +AMO, HLB does as well with oceanic phasing, so you;d have to take out solar as well and we don;t know how to do that. Removing ENSO will only f**k everything up.

Andrew constantly attempts at using the "ONI has been falling" excuse. Sorry, but that is not reflective of global temperature trending with spacing between changes, and will never be.

All I ever said was 3 of the past 4 years have averaged colder than the decadal mean, (2008, 2009, & 2011>will). Then you take it as if I'm removing ENSO? Don't believe it when Andrew tries to drumup BS about me, or anything about me, its always been false.

Its a Young -PDO phase that.....this is all you can expect in a young, immature -PDO phase that has only been around 4yrs. When the -PDO matures over the next 20 years, you'll see more frequent La Nina, the colder global SST's as a result of such changes, and the AMO going negative will add to the cooling, although its only has 30% of the correlation the PDO does.

[nzucker]

.Its a Young -PDO phase that.....this is all you can expect in a young, immature -PDO phase that has only been around 4yrs. When the -PDO matures over the next 20 years, you'll see more frequent La Nina, the colder global SST's as a result of such changes, and the AMO going negative will add to the cooling, although its only has 30% of the correlation the PDO does.

I agree that we're definitely cooling some based on changes in the PDO/AMO. We'll have to see if some of those extremely warm waters in the North Atlantic fade as much of the warmth in the Southern Atlantic has been starting to do on the latest maps, as that could be a way to keep satellite temperatures low over the summer despite the gradually fading Niña.

In terms of measuring the influence of this -PDO phase, it will be interesting to see where ENSO goes for Winter 11-12. I'd be much more convinced of the strength of this -PDO to affect global temperatures if we see a multi year La Niña. Niño 3.4 is still at -1.0C, which is fairly impressive for this juncture, however the subsurface warmth has arrived at 110W which greatly increases the chance of an El Niño. So we have mixed tendencies at this point.

[skierinvermont]

Skierinvermont is Lying about me again, pathetic.

I'm not removing ENSO at all. You can't do that, period, because the atmosphere will respond to each ENSO phase differently based on strength, basis, etc.............GLAAM /MEI reflect the atmospheric signal, -NAO coincides the +AMO, HLB does as well with oceanic phasing, so you;d have to take out solar as well and we don;t know how to do that. Removing ENSO will only f**k everything up.

Skierinvermont constantly attempts at using the "ONI has been falling" excuse. Sorry, but that is not reflective of global temperature trending with spacing between changes, and will never be.

All I ever said was 3 of the past 4 years have averaged colder than the decadal mean, (2008, 2009, & 2011>will). Then you take it as if I'm removing ENSO? Don't believe it when skierinvermont tries to drumup BS about me, or anything about me, its always been false.

Its a Young -PDO phase that.....this is all you can expect in a young, immature -PDO phase that has only been around 4yrs. When the -PDO matures over the next 20 years, you'll see more frequent La Nina, the colder global SST's as a result of such changes, and the AMO going negative will add to the cooling, although its only has 30% of the correlation the PDO does.

You stated that removing the El Nino the temperature has dropped .1C. That is a true statement.. but it also doesn't mean anything except that Ninas are cold.

The fact remains that if you select periods that show no tendency in ENSO, they show warming of ~ +.06C/decade.

I have also repeatedly reminded you not to use my first name on the internet, as I am not on a first name basis with people that call me a ****sucker and mr. homo.

[BethesdaWX]

You stated that removing the El Nino the temperature has dropped .1C. That is a true statement.. but it also doesn't mean anything except that Ninas are cold.

Where did I say that? Quote me, thats BS.

Global temps have dropped about 0.1C from the decadal mean without removing the ENSO spike...I never implyied taking it out, that would be ridiculous.

I said aside from the Nino (as in) 1 yr.....regardless, they've dropped about 0.1C, or will have, by mid/late 2011.

[BethesdaWX]

I have also repeatedly reminded you not to use my first name on the internet, as I am not on a first name basis with people that call me a ****sucker and mr. homo.

We went over this already, why do you keep bringing up? You took me literally, I was just joshin with you.

I apologized for upsetting you, and we agreed to let the isue drop.

Every thread you enter gets trashed, so thanks for this.

[skierinvermont]

You stated that removing the El Nino the temperature has dropped .1C. That is a true statement.. but it also doesn't mean anything except that Ninas are cold.

The fact remains that if you select periods that show no tendency in ENSO, they show warming of ~ +.06C/decade.

I have also repeatedly reminded you not to use my first name on the internet, as I am not on a first name basis with people that call me a ****sucker and mr. homo.

Where did I say that? Quote me, thats BS.

Global temps have dropped about 0.1C from the decadal mean without removing the ENSO spike...I never implyied taking it out, that would be ridiculous.

I said aside from the Nino (as in) 1 yr.....regardless, they've dropped about 0.1C, or will have, by mid/late 2011.

You said it right here:

So aside from the El Nino in 2010, we've had about 0.1C drop.

If you select ENSO neutral periods, we have continued to warm at .06C/decade since 2002.

[nzucker]

I have to say, looking at the latest ocean data tells me that El Niño is trying to get a foothold across the Tropical Pacific. What's going to be crucial is whether those cold SSTs over the negative subsurface pocket in the eastern regions keep feeding the La Niña despite how much warmth has built in from Indonesia. We still have the strong trade winds and -PDO configuration that favors a La Niña, but it wouldn't take much at this point given the above-average OHC in the ENSO region to make a reversal in direction.

Obviously, a lot of us East Coast weenies are praying for a weak Niño, so these are good signs.

[skierinvermont]

We went over this already, why do you keep bringing up? You took me literally, I was just joshin with you.

I apologized for upsetting you, and we agreed to let the isue drop.

Every thread you enter gets trashed, so thanks for this.

No we did not agree to let it drop. And you have repeatedly called me names (****sucker) Mr. Homo, stupid, full of **** etc as well as making overt threats against other posters... even after both I and the moderating staff have told you to stop repeatedly.

[BethesdaWX]

The fact remains that if you select periods that show no tendency in ENSO, they show warming of ~ +.06C/decade.

No, you cannot remove ENSO! What don't you understand about that? You think we know how to adjust temps for each ENSO event?

Global SST's, H/LLB/NAO/AO< Solar influence/GeoMagF, Volcanism, PDO/AMO inflence, IOD influence, differing GCC......All influence global temperatures to a point where we do not know how much to remove based on ENSO!

Just FYI...your statement of +0.06C per decade only references the +PDO phase before it flipped in 2007, the same cannot be said now.

[BethesdaWX]

No we did not agree to let it drop. And you have repeatedly called me names (****sucker) Mr. Homo, stupid, full of **** etc as well as making overt threats against other posters... even after both I and the moderating staff have told you to stop repeatedly.

I haven't called you anything since that issue.

I'm willing to let it drop, if you're not, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm done discussing this, it will only derail the thread.

[skierinvermont]

No, you cannot remove ENSO! What don't you understand about that? You think we know how to adjust temps for each ENSO event?

Global SST's, H/LLB/NAO/AO< Solar influence/GeoMagF, Volcanism, PDO/AMO inflence, IOD influence, differing GCC......All influence global temperatures to a point where we do not know how much to remove based on ENSO!

Just FYI...your statement of +0.06C per decade only references the +PDO phase before it flipped in 2007, the same cannot be said now.

ENSO has a fairly consistent and predictable effect on global temperatures. it is a fairly simple and straightforward statistical matter to remove the bias it may introduce in the short run. Take a statistics class.

My statement of +.06C/decade is from 2002-present and basically covers the entire transition from +PDO to -PDO. It is the approximate figure which both tacoman and zucker agreed with at the time.

[BethesdaWX]

You said it right here:

Yeah exactly, I wasn't removing it, "aside from" as in the break in the TREND, not the end anomaly which has cooled almost 0.1C since the PDO went cold INCLUDING ENSO.

By the end of 2011, the anom will be cooler.

[skierinvermont]

I haven't called you anything since that issue.

I'm willing to let it drop, if you're not, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm done discussing this, it will only derail the thread.

Respect my wishes, and stop using my first name, as I have asked a half dozen times.

[BethesdaWX]

ENSO has a fairly consistent and predictable effect on global temperatures. it is a fairly simple and straightforward statistical matter to remove the bias it may introduce in the short run. Take a statistics class.

My statement of +.06C/decade is from 2002-present and basically covers the entire transition from +PDO to -PDO. It is the approximate figure which both tacoman and zucker agreed with at the time.

NO, you cannot remove ENSO because there are other factors affecting the Temps, Global SST's, AMO warming, global volcanism are just some issues.

You CANNOT DO IT

[skierinvermont]

Yeah exactly, I wasn't removing it, "aside from" as in the break in the TREND, not the end anomaly which has cooled almost 0.1C since the PDO went cold INCLUDING ENSO.

By the end of 2011, the anom will be cooler.

The NINO was not a break in the trend, it is part of the trend. Which if you select a period which shows no trend in ENSO, shows warming of +.06C/decade since 2002, and +.08C/decade since 1998.

[BethesdaWX]

The NINO was not a break in the trend, it is part of the trend. Which if you select a period which shows no trend in ENSO, shows warming of +.06C/decade since 2002, and +.08C/decade since 1998.

Ugghh DUDE, I meant the cooling trend on global temperatures, not the overall dropoff since 2007. Please infer.

Example, the 1998 El Nino spike is part of the trend, but it BREAKS the trend.

[skierinvermont]

NO, you cannot remove ENSO because there are other factors affecting the Temps, Global SST's, AMO warming, global volcanism are just some issues.

You CANNOT DO IT

Yes you can. The effect of ENSO is quite similar and predictable. As such statistical models can easily remove the effect. Correlations with ENSO can be conducted which leave the effect of other factors, but isolate the effect of ENSO.

Or one can simply select a period which shows no ENSO trend, which negates the need to remove the effect statistically.

Either way, one arrives at a trend of +.06C/decade in the recent past.

[skierinvermont]

Ugghh DUDE, I meant the cooling trend on global temperatures, not the overall dropoff since 2007. Please infer.

Example, the 1998 El Nino spike is part of the trend, but it BREAKS the trend.

And if you select a period which shows no trend in ENSO, or if you remove the effect of ENSO statistically as many people often do, then the trend since 1998 is around +.08C/decade.

[BethesdaWX]

Yes you can. The effect of ENSO is quite similar and predictable. As such statistical models can easily remove the effect. Correlations with ENSO can be conducted which leave the effect of other factors, but isolate the effect of ENSO.

Or one can simply select a period which shows no ENSO trend, which negates the need to remove the effect statistically.

Either way, one arrives at a trend of +.06C/decade in the recent past.

No way in hell can you figure out how much to remove based on ENSO. Lets see some freakin evidence of your claim in how much to remove.

Lets see it. You cannot attibute a certain amount to ENSO because the ONI, or Nino SST, is only part of ENSO, and how the GTA has been affected by each driver and forcings is NOT KNOWN, only that there is a correlation.

ANd...

Your +.06C does not apply after the PDO flip anyway, so its kinda over anyway.