So who is talking about the start of the year?  We are talking about the year as a whole.

Anyway, so there's a cooling trend now - which no doubt is why October was so warm...

• The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2010 was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F) and was the eighth warmest on record. October 2003 is the warmest October on record.
• The October worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—the sixth warmest October on record.
• The October worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F) and was the tenth warmest October on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global 

Do you want to try another line of 'reasoning'??

Can we look for some middle ground here to allow some breathing space for the dissolution of the facts.
It is obvious imo, by the lenght and perservance of this thread that a hardened polar situation has developed and infected other climate threads.
Mabey it's time to sit back and reflect.

This post btw ,is unrelated and unbiased or responsive towards any recent posts.

I know your post was the last Gandalf.

Absolutely no bad intention meant to you or four.

Cheers btw again..Hopefully.

We seem to be having parallel debates in two separate threads on much the same point.

Speckled Jim has posted two helpful graphs which you might want to examine.

I still don't see where this latent heat is supposed to be stored?

Maybe the problem is with the word Hoax and why people define it as such.
It stands solid here in Ireland where the government propose a doubling of carbon tax,just to raise funds.

That's political.That's the root of the Great Warming Hoax.imo.

Explain the need for that doubling of tax scientifically?

LOL. Explain our addiction to fossil fuel and you will find an explanation for the doubling of carbon tax.

Hint: how does the pricing model work in economics?   If something does not have a measurable monetary cost but is clearly a cost to society/future generations then how do you change the propensity to spend money on energy?  Of course this assumes some elasticity of demand, i.e. people have to have alternatives.  There's the issue, I think.  if green tax revenue was used to subsidise low-energy or energy-saving initiatives then perhaps the antipathy would subside a little?

This imo. leads to a preception/perception of 'Hoax' for gain and sends out a totally wrong message.

Your other points? as toward a more energy efficient better future?.

I fully agree.

Mabey we have different ways to convince people of such.AGW Would not be my favorite but I think we are on the same track.

btw,looking good.

I think folk tend to use what they choose?

If politics had not seen 'votes' in being 'green' then science would not be so enmeshed with it since the late 80's.

Folk surely know what politicians are like and the way they utilise that which brings them popularity (and shy away from that which may cost them support)

If science had it's way we would be poorer today by a long chalk but be working towards saving our Children /grandchildren future quality of life.

This 'cost' will not be sanctioned by any political party as ,5 years later, they'd be out of office.

Science is not bound by such and ,year on year, brings us further confirmations that their initial position on AGW is correct and ,if anything , undercooked (as we do not have a proper handle on the complexities of climate feedbacks?).

In time certain political 'flavours' will back away from the science as it will demand (the longer we leave it) more and more Govt. monies to help offset the worse consequences of AGW (check out the Republican party in the U.S.).

Humans deal with perceivable threats (and not long term problems) as we find on such threads. You will find folk who believe in the issues AGW will bring us have a horrible wish for a catastrophe, that can be shown to be AGW driven, to 'open the eyes' of deniers as to the horrors to come so we can move ,as one, towards mitigating such. I believe this is driven by the understanding that a slow 'drip ,drip' threat will not spark our survival instincts as we cannot perceive any threat in our day to day living (I mean look at the clamour a little snow [perceived threat] brings when it arrives compared to a 6 month , below average rainfall, that brings water shortages?)

Sadly , my understanding of climate and it's workings tends towards the 'Lovelokian view' of climate shift. By the time the 'catastrophe' occurs it'll be global and for good.

If we cannot see the Arctic as our 'Canary in the coal mine' or the droughts/wildfires in Russia or Pakistan's floods as anything other than 'natural variability' at play (or our run of floods over the last 10 yrs, or last years/this years grain price hikes due to adverse climate over swathes of the planet and the inflation it drives)

Anyhoo's I'm becoming content in my position of 'nobody will do a thing until too late' and enjoy the horrid things the septic's currently engage in knowing that their most vocal proponents will be the first against the wall come the climate snap (as folk realise what these folk have cost humanity). A certain Bavarian deliberately cost the planet 6 million lives and will be remembered through history as the worst that humanity can spawn......what of those costing us Billions of avoidable deaths?

Very Strong ? Grey Wolf.
I see your admission that science is linked with politics though.?(IF SCIENCE HAD ITS WAY)What does that mean?.

Does it mean that Politics control science?.

That Bavarian also linked science with politics.

He was Austrian btw.

If we are talking about the same SOB?.

Well done, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

I am shocked and bloody angry.

Is this what it has come to?.I hope not.

I would concider myself fairly intelligent and take that post as an insult towards any regards/viewpoint other than the poster,s. It should be withdrawn.

Well done Four and others.  It may well be your intransigence and failure to engage that has resulted in that post.

Just how long can you bleat on about politics and propaganda in the face of the evidence before people lose patience and either stop contributing here or decide to make comments of similar ilk?

It was a valid comment if you accept that we are on a point of no return as regards GHG emissions and the potential impact on future generations.

Anyway, I note that - as usual - you don't bother to engage with any of the valid observations in Gray-Wolf's post.  It is a perfectly valid question to ask when a series of unusual events addds up to a change in the baseline, isn't it?

Hi AIMSIR

Is this really so much worse than the nonsense that Four and others put in here on a regular basis?  I appreciate fully that the reference to a certain Austrian is highly emotive but then so is repeated reference to conspiracies, propaganda and such like dished out by Four on a tediously repetitive basis.

This Forum is either open for all points of view or none, provided the points are put constructively and politely.  Are any of us entitled to sit in judgement?

I would have great difficulty accepting the premise that any of the events are un-precedented let alone caused by CO2.

There's also a high probability that policies trying to enforce CO2 reduction in the absence of economically viable alternatives at this time, will de-stabilise the worlds economy (some more) and result in far more casualties.
But that would have been caused by deliberately by green biased policies - so it's worse than something which comes about from 'non-action'.

You can take it from me, my word, that I don't think you, or 'sceptics', are like Hitler. Do you accept my word? I await your response.

Again, there is no hoax and the science is out there for anyone who wants to read it.

I will also say this. In fifty year, and in a hundred years we'll be able to look back, but we can't yet.  My view is that it's entirely possible AGW may cause several degrees warming and that warming would impact on millions of lives. Does that mean I'm calling anyone Hitler? No, it means that's my view. Does that mean I can be intimidated into not saying what I think for fear of you, or other 'sceptics', saying I think you are Hitler? No.

Again, the science is sound and readily available for anyone interested in reading it.

I remember certain members throwing tantrums about a thread called The Final Solution which didn't say anyone was like Hitler at all

Odd then, isn't it, how silent you were when people like me were branded as green terriorsts, or harridans, or environmentalists. I guess you just missed those posts? Yes, that'll be it

Yeah, a title like 'The final solution' has no allusions at all.

And my word given in a post higher up. Do you accept that?

Firstly guys "my position" equates to my opinion, am I allowed that?

Secondly, the folk who deliberately spread dis-information /confusion to a population (that are wanting better news than science can bring) are effectively robbing us of the opportunity to make a difference that would spare millions from the fate that procrastination condemns them to (or is climate change suddenly 'benign'?)

Thirdly , Doh! ,yes Austrian and 'Yes' he murdered my grandpa Ruben in one of his camps.  

If I am to have grandchildren then I suspect I know what they will think of the folk who effectively robbed them of the planet we all know and enjoy.

I know my own father was wracked with guilt (prior to his death) about what he had seen us do to the planet in the name of "creature comforts and profit" ( esp. 07's Arctic melt which floored him) as he had worked in Industry all of his life never suspecting the greater costs (other than his own personal costs to his health).

I'm afraid I must stand by my opinion ( and not be cowed by those I fear "protest too much") but I am deeply sorry if it hurts those it is not intended to scald and for that you have my apologies.

At the end of the day Science did not start this 'climate war' but became a victim of it. I believe it is a battle we must engage in to protect/save the hurt of the generations to come ( and all the creatures we will consign to extinction)that will suffer so if we allow the deniers/confusers/procrastinators to stall our actions for very much longer.

The only 'hoax' ongoing is the extreme denier-sphere praying on those who would wish to be away from our current peril.

Just had a word with my Uncle whose extensive family was all wiped out in a concentration camp because he was the only one (he was about ten at the time) for whom they could afford the cost of transport (my mother is Jewish but my father is Methodist).

He say, beware of big state, it kills people.

So I am somewhat concerned about the 'denier' label but also concerned about big state solutions to perceived problems.

Opinions are fine but proposed solutions to possibly imagined problems that are the subject of political manipulation should be VERY carefully analysed.

Generally speaking, if a perceived problem is regarded as 'settled' and authoritarian solutions are proposed then it's time to find somewhere else to live. I don't know what one should do if the situation arises in a global context. Just stand up , say your piece, and pray would seem to be about it.

All well and good with 'percieved problems' and this ,surely ? ,is where the problem resides. This is not (for most all of Science') a perceived threat but a real and present danger.

If you avoided the 'blogsphere' I think you would be hard pressed to find any concensus that the science is not good and the tenants not proven (if not fully understood?).

Churchill had a time whipping up the perceived threat throughout the 30's but once the bombs were falling we .as a nation, were solidly behind him.

Must it be this way today? Must we be 'midst catastrophe' before we accept the 'clear and present danger'?

I posted earlier many folk who accept the science will admit that (in their weaker ,more frustrated moments) they wish for the first of the great AGW catastrophes to occur to help underscore the 'clear and present danger' we face. Again I'd remind folk that our autonomic nervous sysatem is only hardwired to react to perceived threats (Sabre toothed cat getting ready to pounce) and not a 'long term' danger (ice sheet melt) it is our frontal lobes ,our intellect, that deals with the 'bigger picture' and has helped place humanity where it is today (we're not the 'clever ,clever ape for now't!).

So it would seem (yet again) we go full circle and those who will not accept mainstream science will deny the danger whilst our best minds continue to ring the alarm bells as loudly as they can to warn society of the upcoming dangers we are creating for our selves and our planet.

I'm informed by observations, personal experience and personal judgement, not by the blogosphere and not by 'experts' who cannot create a good enough model to predict anything that actually happens.

The alarmist viewpoint does not chime with the facts. History shows that there is currently nothing unprecedented going on. Day to day observations tell me that the warming spell has now ceased and we are on the cusp of a natural cooling spell.

I've been interested in climate science and weather for nearly 60 years. The current fuss is not consistent with what I have seen and read over that period. It has all the characteristics of a 'convenient' perceived threat which has become subject to political manipulation.

Be that as it may. A few years of continued observation with new methods will kill it stone dead in my view and I'm content to wait and see.

In the meantime things that I started putting in public view some three years ago are holding up well and are entering the mainstream of the blogosphere if not yet the mainstream proper but even there lots of papers are coming out that confirm aspects of my earlier work.