Only need 20 more straight years of this, and we might have the Arctic sea ice back in a reasonable shape.
Actually, this is an interesting hypothetical discussion. There is a rather strident guy over at WattsUpWithThat (don't throw tomatoes, I just go there for the graphs, honest) who is convinced that the entire institution of climatology is full of poo and that AGW is not going to be a big issue because it will be severely moderated by negative feedback mechanisms. One of the negative feedback mechanisms that he has touted is increased cloud cover due to convection in the SW Pacific.
So for fun's sake let's just assume the following hypothetical: that he is on to something and the increased MJO forcing in the maritime continent/crap zones that we love so much is actually impacting the AO to become more positive. So let's assume that our recent predilection to go on season-long grand tours of zones 4 -5- 6 is the new base state which will cause us 20 straight years of snowless misery, give or take the occasional fluke. BUT let's also assume that it will cause a continual +++AO which will keep the cold air locked up in the Arctic and will thus help the Arctic sea ice to significantly recover.
So my hypothetical question is: will you guys accept the trade-off. Would 20 years of this kind of fail be worth it to get back to the halcyon days of yore with a cool base state?