Having quickly run through the paper (its available free so people can read it. Ok Im joking PO.com everyone knows what they will think about this paper before reading it
) but what strikes me is this paper will not be measuring warming from radiative forcing but warming from changes in the distribution of warm water on the pacific as that is what causes the short term cyclic changes it is analysing. So it measure the ENSO cycle then decalres that it has measured a response to temperature that resembles the ENSO cycle.
Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO , we
conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced.
Wow. Now either they have completly rewritten Pacific meteorology and are hiding how they have done it or they are drawing conclusions not really in the paper.
While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate
sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting
the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the
amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance
variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how
large the feedback difference is.
That bolded is how they got the paper published (Id be willing to bet) the journal editor probibly wanted a very srongly guarded statement that made clear this was pretty out on a limb stuff.
If they have made a great break through then well done them but otherwise I think the conclusions are a wee bit too speculative and coparing apples with oranges.
Very very noteworthy, the equatorial pacific temperature changes will not affect things like polar albedo change and (ok BIG AND) the equator is a heat source to the rest of the planet, heat flows out of the equator to the rest so extrapolating global changes based on an equatorial effect can be a tad misleading.