If you don't mind, I'm going to keep after you on one important point.
In these e-mails, we have discussed two hypotheses for the observed
lead/lag relation and decorrelation. My hypothesis is that all of the
observations are due to canonical ENSO physics --- not clouds causing
temperature changes. The fact that climate models get these relations
supports this, and it is consistent with the surface energy budget.
Your hypothesis --- clouds cause temperature changes --- has no
supporting data (beyond just the correlation & decorrelation) and it
is not consistent with the surface energy budget.
Here's my question: Why would anyone (including you) accept your
hypothesis when the mainstream view fits the data better.
I'm interested in your thoughts.