SS's take on Levitus should be read in conjunction with David Stockwell's appraisal here:

http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/

As for clouds and negative feedback; the Warren and Eastman paper I linked to verifies what Ramanathan has found in other papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4887/57.abstract

And what is believed to have been the case in the past:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5873/195.abstract

Dear cohenite,

I wrote; "I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions."

Do any of the three links you provided in your post above fill that criteria? I'm keen to get started.

csteele, you say:

"I would love to give my observations or comment on any paper you were able to give unequivocal support for. One that you agree with both the science and the conclusions."

I do have a number of papers which I think conclusively debunk part or the whole of AGW; rather than give you one paper I will give a number which have looked at an essential part of AGW, the tropical hot spot, {THS]. These papers are analysed here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

Do you think the papers make a good case for concluding that the AGW prediction of a THS has been refuted?

Dear cohenite,

Great. Thanks for that. I had never heard of the Tropical Hotspot before nor that is was a core assumption of global warming science. But hey, always up for extra knowledge.

Just to confirm before we get started, the three substantive papers that are quoted in your link are Douglass et al (2007), McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman (2010) and Christie et al [2010]. Are you giving unequivocal support for all three papers cited including your acceptance of both the science and the conclusions contained within?

Douglass et al (2007), as described, had faults which is why the later papers are so important because they rectify Douglass's problems and address the critique of Douglass by Santer et al 2008.

McKitrick et al 2010 and 2011, Christy 2010 and Fu et al 2011 are the key papers.

McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011) and Miskolczi 2010 are fun but tough.

Recent statement summary from the American Meteorological Society:

Quote: It provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future.

It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature. End quote.

The full statement can be found here:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

This is also worth following (despite a glitch in the server)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/