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.
I'm also sure that if I filled a bathtub containing water at room temperature with a lot of ice, the air in the bathroom containing the bathtub would also slowly get colder. Would you agree that is what would happen? Were any thermodynamic laws violated in the cooling of the room? Where did the heat in the room go? (Answer: mostly to heat the water, transfer-of-energy process establishing thermal equilibrium).
Note that when the ice was first poured into the bathtub (unless there was a very strong circulation fan going), putting your hand just above the surface of the water would have detected very cool air. The water has cooled the "boundary layer" just above the surface. That layer was not well-defined before the ice was added because conditions were essentially at equilibrium. So now there is a layer of cold air with a layer of warm air above it. This change will alter the movement of air in the room. When it happens in the Pacific Ocean, it alters the movement and characteristics of the air masses above the Pacific Ocean surface.
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.
It's not that simple. However, the atmospheric manifestation of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is an upward movement of the tropopause, caused due to the climate system's never-ending search for equilibrium. This has been measured and observed. In case you think I don't know what I'm talking about, read:
Rising Height of Atmospheric Boundary Points to Human Impact on Climate
Moving on... in a related area, some of the observed stratospheric cooling is due to anthropogenic global warming. Why? Because the longwave radiation is trapped by the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. The stratosphere is warmed by the outgoing LR, so if that flux is reduced, then the stratosphere will cool off. Which it is. A warmer air mass radiates more longwave "spaceward" -- so to summarize, yes, all of this is in the models.
So, to summarize:
-- the larger area of cooler water in the Pacific characteristic of a La Nina event cools off the overlying air mass. Because air masses move, this cooler air will move around the world, and contribute to lower surface air temperatures in many regions of the globe. The surface waters will gradually warm during this process.
-- at the same time, the thermocline depth in the western Pacific deepens. This allows for greater storage of heat in the western Pacific water column. Also, reduced cloud cover in the western Pacific during a La Nina may also increase the heat content of these waters due to increased solar irradiance.
Final conclusion: the increased area of cooler water in the Pacific during a La Nina event causes lower surface air temperatures. Even if the mechanism is misunderstood, that's what happens.
(Further badgering will not engender a reply. A substantive question free of nuance and insinuation might.)