There's a continual agenda to portray CO2 as the major driver of climate, when evidence is mounting that it's a minor if not insignificant one.

No there isn't.

Though this sentiment maybe explains the problem

Co2 is portrayed by science as the most significant factor in underlying warming occuring over and above any warming (or other climatic change) that may occur naturally.  At no time has anyone except deniers suggested it's currently a major driver of climate - though it may have been more significant a few hundred million years ago.

See the difference?

As an example, there seems to be a desire to explain how even colder recent winters must be a result of CO2 climate disruption - everything has to be portrayed as being caused or influenced by CO2.
It must be made out to be the crucial factor to maintain *the hoax*

---

In another thread the idea of latent heat from the oceans is well covered.
The oceans are cooling now due to the cooling influences you mention, not at the start of the year.

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 20^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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.

 

 

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 20^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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'??

The year so far has been affected by latent ocean heat but it will cool steadily now.
The October temps will likely be adjusted down yet too.

---

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 20^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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'??

The year so far has been affected by latent ocean heat but it will cool steadily now.
The October temps will likely be adjusted down yet too.

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?

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?

---

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.

I can't ??? ( in the context of abusing the tax) as by the Irish government and I am sure many others.

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

---

Well done, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

It does seem like that???.

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, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

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?

 

---

Well done, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

It does seem like that???.

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.

 

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'.

---

Well done, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

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

---

Well done, Sceptics are like Hitler - QED

It does seem like that???.

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.

 

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

---

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

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

That would have been when Hansen or some of our own home grown green terrorists were playing up cutting fences, trying to shut down powers stations.
All counter productive as it makes you look like evironmentalists
(actually I only ever noticed you make that hilarious joke)

---