Methuselah

On average, worldwide: not that different from what we have today...But the UHI around WUWT's head offices will become a thing of leg-end...

As with Sunspot Number, Solar UV, El Nino, AMO, QBO, local albedo etc, etc, etc, the state of the Arctic ice is merely one of a myriad influences...?

Considering that no-one has ever suggested that Arctic ice does 'dictate' our winters, what exactly is your point? PS: Edited title so as to prevent any 'misunderstanding'...

Aye Ian. On the balance of things, it clearly looks as if that one's been put to bed: the data are inconsistent with the hypothesis...

At least they've stopped short of quoting the areal increase in mm2!

Indeed Ian. how can one possibly hide behind something that is so readily available to whomever genuinely wants to understand? On the other hand, it's much easier to simply argue from incredulity...

Despite a sea-level rise of 100m and London's new all-time temperature record of 47C, many acclaimed scientists maintain that global temperatures have not risen for 117 years!

Then, perhaps we need enlighten them, Ian? I'm not sure that simply berating them is the answer?

And, oddly enough, neither has anyone else...

I'm not sure abut that, Ian...But, wasn't the Younger Dryas caused entirely by the melting-out of the Great North American Ice-Sheet? Unless the Solar flux has reduced by an amount greater than CO2's radiative forcing has increased, any expectation that the current 15-year (3-year?) pause might be permanent, looks to be a little premature? Whatever will be, will be...

That's why I related the question to weather, SI...

When you consider that an area of photovoltaics, the size of the Aswan Dam, would produce an amount of energy an order of magnitude greater than the dam itself does it's a small wonder green energy is so little-used? The corporate world carries a lot of inertia!

Just had my washing soaked!

A good article from the other thread: http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-past-10000-years/

Just remember where the salt pot is, MK?

Thanks Malcolm.

"...Bearing in mind that the sun is the biggest consistent forcing of all on the planet?" But, how does that explain the 'young sun paradox', which was consistent for many millions of years? Anywho, I agree that cloud feedbacks constitute a major uncertainty, regarding any attempts to model future climates...But, as I said in the 'other thread', the data - as of 2009 - point towards a weak +ive overall feedback. But I haven't been able to find anything more up-to-date... If you can find research, whose results are to the contrary, I'll be the first to take it on-board...

And then there's this: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/new-paper-finds-us-extreme-heat-waves.html

It's starting to sound like the Royal Shakespeare?

Same here, CC. But having all the lights off and sitting in total darkness helps!

Which is of course, utter codswallop...IMO, arguing is part of debate, and we can all state our respective opinions/beliefs/knowledge without fear of being unduly censored. If someone posts pro-AGW stuff into this thread, please report it; it'll be treated in exactly the same way as will things put into the other thread...Unless it's missed. We cant be 'on duty' 24/7! Remember: you only need make a link...

Is it? Or is it just a success for sceptical thinking? It was, after all, genuine sceptics who originally suggested that Mother Nature might have hidden and unforeseen negative feedbacks up her sleeve...I really don't get why y'all are not patting yourselves on the backs and saying: 'I told you so.' You should be... But, an obvious answer to your perfectly valid question might be: any amount of water has only a finite heat-capacity?

Amazing how being so averse to links doesn't stop some people from reflexively 'liking' any post that links to WUWT? I'm not a great fan of links, either...But what do you do, when repeatedly asked for 'proof'?

Vodka O'clock for me...

Here's an article on cloud feedback; it seems be rather minor, judging by the abstract. Anywho, last time I looked extensively was back in 2009 and, at that time, most of the current research suggested a small positive radiative feedback. So, therefore, the only assumption I can see (in the IPCC's latest report) is that the research is headed in the right direction. Wouldn't assuming the opposite to be true (or even pretending that no such evidence actually exists) be rather a perverse one? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000235/abstract;jsessionid=A4E7AA6EC544312D6CA72B6C675DE908.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false