Please note that philosophers will never put out a hypothesis. That is the Scientific Method, and our warmie debaters have rejected that. In our modern world, anybody that puts out a hypothesis, and it turns out wrong, is destroyed by twits. So, nobody does it.
Hypothesis -- That the Pacific equatorial belt goes through cycles of absorbing and distributing heat energy. These cycles are unstable, and can turn off and on. A tropical volcano has the ability to trigger an off cycle.
We now have accurate, live satellite streams that show surface temperature and ocean currents. In the past few years we have observed most of the physics of major cycles, such as an El Nino reversal. We are now in an 'off' cycle, which is freezing the Northern Hemisphere.
When the Pacific current is in full form, it has a mechanism to absorb more solar energy. That is because during a northern cold cycle, there appears to be no heat transfer to the south. We have to suspect there is an 'on/off' mechanism.
I propose that violent thunderstorm action on the belt acts as a heat pipe to funnel solar heat to the ocean. When the ocean reaches 30C, it spins off tropical plumes which warm the north. The storms send up water vapour to an excess of 30,000 ft, and then it condenses and rains. Normally, this would be thought of as a 'blocking agent', but the evidence suggests that it is a net importer of heat.
The western end of the Pacific is always in full action, and this can be examined with balloons, and compared with the cold end. The hypothesis can be confirmed or dismissed.
You can see that any physics is expensive. Far better to buy windmills. Old Rex complains that the warmies are a 'church', but he gives no reason why, or what is necessary for things not to be church. All the right wing is a bunch of losers. They could demand 'Direct Measurement' and make Einstein happy. But they just drink their beer and grouch. :)