OK.
If you are claiming that the heat moves into the deep ocean during la nina, you need to explain why only surface ocean temperatures are relevant when drawing up statistics.
Regarding the first part of the sentence above, that is not the claim (and note that the claim is not "mine".) Regarding the second half of the sentence, I have no idea what you mean.
If your la nina made sense, ocean surface temps would become warmer when a la nina event begins if it is drawing heat from the atmosphere.
La Nina events do not "draw heat" from the atmosphere. They allow increased heating of the western Pacific warm pool by solar radiation. Which would've been apparent if you had actually considered the diagrams and thought about what was happening.
Children of the Tropics: El Niño and La Niña
See paragraph beginning "Recent work..."
Your claim is that the atmosphere and the ocean surface simultaneously lose joules during a la nina.
First of all, I don't think that "losing joules" is the right way to express a cooling process. I believe that would apply to a heating process, i.e., if something is heated by a heat source, then the heat source "loses" joules that are gained by the something that is heating up.
Now, when the air mass directly above the cooler ocean waters gets cooled by those waters, the heat gets displaced, essentially upward, by the cooler air below. A warmer air mass will radiate more energy to space. Also, cooler air aloft will cause condensation, and the latent heat of condensation may account for the rest of the heat. More rainfall over the western Pacific is expected during a La Nina.
Well, according to Hansen, gaining joules is the right way to explain the heating process. He actually explained this in terms of additional watts per cubic meter of atmosphere gained by the added co2 in the atmosphere that would be analogous with a small light bulb lit within that cubic meter. You'll obviously light fewer Christmas tree lights when that cubic meter of atmosphere is cooler. Therefore your la nina has caused the loss of joules ( or watts, calories, whatever you like ) in the atmosphere and ocean surface, if you believe in the la nina fallacy that is.
Now, when the air mass directly above the cooler ocean waters gets cooled by those waters, the heat gets displaced, essentially upward, by the cooler air below.
Heat moves toward cold. It does not get into shoving contests with your "cold energy". What does this blast of cold air get displaced with in your 2nd law denying imagination? Wouldn't it have to be something warmer? Once it clicks in your mind that it would have to be displaced with something warmer, you can contemplate where that warmth came from and maybe you'll realize that your theory is invalid.
A warmer air mass will radiate more energy to space.
Is this factored in your climate models? This would mean sinks increase as your greenhouse effect increases and even more than equilibrium meaning that the greenhouse effect causes cooling. Think about what you are asserting before you assert it.
Also, cooler air aloft will cause condensation, and the latent heat of condensation may account for the rest of the heat. More rainfall over the western Pacific is expected during a La Nina.
La nina does what is convenient for your kind to claim it does during any particular point in time. Case in point:
March 10, 2000
Web posted at: 10:01 p.m. EST (0301 GMT)
ATLANTA (CNN) -- The warm, dry weather associated with the "La Nina" weather phenomenon brought the warmest winter in U.S. history, and could bring a rough fire season to the Southeast United States, according to two separate U.S. government reports released Friday.
Eight years later you want to blame la nina when the winter is colder than your climate change panic predictions indicate.