Methuselah

Yes, I think it's time to start taking the CFS a tad more seriously?

Judging from his own presentation's lack of scientific coherence (is it Groucho Marx or Marty Feldman, he reminds me of?) 'crackpot' is what comes to mind...

If it was all left to scientists to sort-out, and all scientists were free of any bias, there would be no divide...But no one (not you, me, scientist or politician) has ever been born who's entirely without a point of view. But then, if (by some quirk of luck) we did all happen to agree with everything anyone-else says/believes, life would be incredible uninteresting. I have also been attacked from both sides.

Come on Ian? You know what I mean...

Please use the other thread for venturing into speculation, peeps? This is not the place...

Yes J, 'a' cause...Does it really matter which one? The same point applies either way?

I've no doubt that the original source was a mistake, J. (I'd also expect that Joe B has freely acknowledged it as such.) But how many times is it going to be repeated? It has nothing whatever to do with whether one's arguing 'for' or 'against' AGW... IMO, it's just laziness? Something we're all guilty of, from time-to-time?

It was only a question, Aaron...

Is this Matt Hugo character the new Joe B? Every time he makes daft predictions of snowmageddon (every year?) he's hailed as a hero...IMO, he hasn't got anything right, or even wrong, yet (winter being still three months' away) he's simply saying what folks like to hear?

The only prediction I feel like making is this: the Polar Jet will be more likely to buckle; but I have no expectations as to where any buckling will occur, or when...Which means, I think, that we'll need to cast our eyes further afield than just simply Northwest Europe? Another question: what'll happen to global temps once the ice has gone - or reaches a quasi-stable extent?

Aye, peeps will post anything if they think it might help their cause. Even if it is just someone-else's mistake...

Quite right, Daniel. Fortunately, said conditions will almost certainly never occur. What would such a freeze take? -20C for six weeks'?

So that's the question: do we think the recent Arctic Ice-Melt will affect our weather, and, if so, how?

You seem to be getting a tad carried-away there, Ian? Be careful what you wish for!

And, at -10C, fine spray freezes when it impacts any solid surface...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120828-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-record-environment-science/

You've hit on one of the real bugbears there, Greybird: the self-serving tendency, popular among absolutists, of mentally replacing cautious words like 'might', 'could', and 'may' with 'will', 'will', and 'will'...And then going on to shoot-down the resulting straw-man hypotheses...

Aye CC. And that's precisely why nobody is disputing it... But, written language being what it is, there's always plenty of scope for people's intentions not being received quite in the way they were intended...Nuance an' all that? And 'proof'? there'll be no proof (either way) regarding this year's melt's possible effect on next year's winter until after the event. I hope that that doesn't make the subject taboo, as well as moot?

Same here, Backtrack. Streetlights are surrounded...

Have they planted grass seed, PM?

Won't be long now!

Already 18C here in Olney...

No J, I am not kidding. But neither am I accusing you of denying any ice-melt...But, at the end of the day, whatever the impact of the melting ice turns out to be, it'll have that impact anyway...Large and persistent temperature anomalies are wont to do that? Will it be the only influence? Of course not. How absurd!

Why would anyone post evidence, in support of a claim that no-one is making?

I'm not dismissing anything, J...But, it was only a few years' back that the sceptics were the ones predicting colder winters and wetter summers resulting from, what they then called, the 'Freshing of the North Atlantic'?? But, anyway, whatever data there are that tie ice-extent to climate are all proxies...For example, all the evidence we have for the MWP is based on proxies...But, whatever, one of the key predictions made by AGW theory was that Arctic ice would retreat. And it has! But, that doesn't prove AGW theory to be correct; any more than the discovery of archaeopteryx proved Darwinian evolution. As with evolution, only time will tell...