Engineers have a term for the ENSO effect, we apply it to a centrifugal turbine system and call it “hunting”. However, as you refuse to engage with the effect of inertia I've tried to comment only on surface effect.

I don't think I can be of more help here under such a restricted caveat, so I'll be off. If you need to contact me a post in the CA forum (where I use my nickname of suricat) should gain my attention.

Best regards for the future, raydart.

“The phenomenological explanation for the rather large increase in temperature for the ocean box, is this: In Arthur’s box model, the ocean box absorbs 50 times as much of the forcing as the atmosphere box. Meanwhile, the heat capacity of Arthur’s ocean is only 10 times as large as the atmosphere, so one might expect the ocean to warm up more readily than the atmosphere.”
Very droll; of course the 2-box idea is automatically deficient because the oceans are continually being recycled through the mantle so a 3rd box would be required for that process by which the oceans lose and gain energy.

This is not, like, a blog rule. But I would personally only get engaged in discussions at the level that they can be directed to at least a hope of a conclusion. Being heavily into writing papers now I am really focussed on taking one step at a time, in whatever direction doesn't matter, but only one step, and not generating a whole lot of 'interesting' thoughts that will never be resolved.

Without doubt, levels of OHC will display variant hysteresis parameters as the OHC must alter sea surface temps (as would land precipitation without runoff affect land WV production).

Best regards, raydart.

I'd already read your last item on Jen's site when it was first posted. Refreshing read in our current desert of literature!

Best regards, raydart.