> I hope the final paper gets published in GRL at least.

Jim, Right now the research is going through peer-review and the outcome is still pending as I recently responded to the critical review.

I don't want to copy&paste the written criticisms here out of courtesy, but the reviewer said essentially that it's unproven research. Of course, that's not a great position to be put in, but I responded by saying that there are really no controlled experiments available to verify the model -- all one can do is self-consistency and sampled-data tests, which is the focus of the last year of effort on the model.

The criticism also cited stochastic resonance as more of a consensus model for ENSO. The evidence that it's not stochastic is that the cyclic forcing periods have to be set precisely to the known orbital periods. The lunar months have to be precise, otherwise the errors accumulate over the 130+ years of the data. If I let these parameters vary during the fit, they converge to the lunar months being within a second in precision and the tropical year within a minute of the known parameters. They also have to be shaped according to the non-linear interactions according to the known orbital ephemeris data and the \\(1/R^3\\) tidal forcing law.

Because of this finding and the fact that I can't reject that lunar and solar tidal forcing based on the excellent agreement found, I have to stand my ground. In other words, if the periods didn't match then I would have abandoned the effort long ago. So I ended up not changing anything but added a few more citations on re-submittal.