# Has the world actually been cooling since 2002? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728 "2014-02-19T19:32:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/201 "2014-02-23T19:36:58Z")
Extreme weather events … Consider the weather event that occurs, on average, every 200 years. It is correct to say that this weather event has a 0.5% chance of occurring in any given year. So, we only have 150 years of solid scientific data from direct observation. That leaves a full quarter of all 200-year events still to be observed. THIS year, out of every 200 weather reporting stations, one will report a 200-year event. There’s a 25% chance this event has never been observed before, thus this report will constitute an “extreme” event. With most every weather station reporting on ten or fifteen parameters that can have extreme values, I hope we can see where “extreme” events are the norm, rather than the exception. +6ºF in Atlanta back in January is far away from average. It was an “extreme” event for that particular calender day, it may have been “extreme” for that week, or even that month. Perhaps it won’t ever get cold again the rest of the year !!! However, over the past 150 years, we find a reading of -9ºF. Those headlines from the lamestream media back in January about record breaking cold in Atlanta were there just to sell advertising space, nothing more. The temperature will drop below 0 in Atlanta, this past winter shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone but the mayor [rolls eyes]. I think frequency of extreme weather events due to AGW is overplayed, we have way to much missing data to make any connection at this time. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/202 "2014-02-23T20:03:43Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I think frequency of extreme weather events due to AGW is overplayed, we have way to much missing data to make any connection at this time. You may choose to think so, but both the scientific evidence and the global insurance industry disagrees with you: > [@](#): > > According to Swiss Re, extreme weather events in the U.S. dominated the list of the most expensive disasters of 2012, with Hurricane Sandy alone costing an estimated $70 billion in total damage and $35 billion in insured losses. In addition, the prolonged U.S. drought and summer heat waves resulted in insured agricultural losses of $11 billion, which was the highest loss in the history of agriculture insurance. > > **In recent years, the insurance industry, including Swiss Re, has been [warning of its increasing exposure](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/partner-news/preparing-insurers-for-a-stormy-future) to climate change-related increases in extreme weather events as well as the effects of sea level rise. [Scientific research has shown](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/exhaustive-report-details-climate-change-extreme-weather-links/) that global warming has already increased the odds of some types of extreme events, such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events.** [http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-dominated-global-disaster-losses-in-2012-insurer-reports-15814](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-dominated-global-disaster-losses-in-2012-insurer-reports-15814) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/203 "2014-02-23T20:19:16Z")
The issue of risk, insurance cost and the possibly increasing “extreme” events is quite meaningful, and of course of great interest to everyone. Everyone. Can we all agree that bad weather is something nobody likes, wants or has any control over? I follow the weather issue, it’s very important, the weather. Who doesn’t? There are many conflicting reports and ideas and claims, all kinds about this. Getting to the topic, if the trend is actually cooling, however slight, however lopsided with the seasons, (see OP), it matters in this issue because of what is happening. If “warming” is the cause of bad weather, and we are not “warming” in the global sense, none of the weather events, or lack of, in a decade, can be blamed on global warming. There is a real issue for the conclusion of the topic question. If you agree it’s not “global warming” right now, for whatever reason, then causation of “extreme” weather is gone. You could in fact say “the pause” has caused all the weather. As strange as that sounds. Or the “cooling NH boreal winters” combined with record arctic ice loss has “caused” the weather. Or the “Pacific wind increase and resultant cooling” is the “cause” of the drop in hurricanes. Claiming causation, or blame if you will, is not scientific, if you don’t actually know what is happening! Like trying to “blame” global warming for record cold spells. If it’s not warming, how can that even be a possibility? Which leads directly into the scientific questions that follow once you decide what the earth is actually doing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/204 "2014-02-23T20:33:55Z")
Iffinitis aguda, and what you casually forget is what the “pause” also means, the warming is still there, it has not reduced to the levels we should see if the human part of it was not there. And then there you forget the ocean warming too, eventually the cycles that are causing the apparent “pause” in the land surface temperatures is much more likely to go up, and it will be added to the human part that is already there. BTW once again you are wrong about causation; scientists, so far, report that on the whole that global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events. That is all that climate science claims, claiming that scientists are telling us that the changing climate is \*\*causing \*\*the extreme weather events remains a common strawman. There may be some evidence out there that could convince scientists that more extreme events like hurricanes and tornadoes are coming, but sticking to the current more supported evidence they can be more confident that more heat waves and heavy precipitation events are reported and coming thanks to a warming world. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/205 "2014-02-23T21:24:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If it’s not warming, how can that even be a possibility? Argument is wrong on at least four different levels. First, still beating the dead horse about “no warming”. Something to do with picking 2002 as the starting year, selecting a magic month, standing on one leg and closing one eye, and you can “see” that it’s cooling! As long as we continue to break and/or tie recent high-temperature records (and we are doing so) the argument is moot and on that basis alone we can expect the destabilization effects to continue and worsen. Second, we are so far from equilibrium for the current level of CO2 – by hundreds of years even if all anthropogenic emissions stopped tomorrow – that any statement about a sudden onset of climate stability at this point is utterly absurd; one has only to look at the Vostok glaciation records to see that present CO2 levels are off the chart, and CO2 is a long-lived GHG. In the larger scheme of things the climate has barely even begun to respond to the highest level of CO2 in possibly about 15 million years. Third, no statement about “warming” or alleged lack thereof that measures only land, atmosphere, and observable sea surface temperatures is a valid description of the earth’s energy balance, since on the order of about 95% of the earth’s total heat uptake goes into the oceans. And it’s ultimately changes in that energy balance that constitute the critical driver of climate. Fourth, the implication that climate instabilities and extreme weather patterns are closely synchronized in time with measured surface temperature trends is nothing short of ludicrous; in the real world, they can be decoupled by hundreds or even thousands of years. However, it may be that the insurance industry acknowledges that climate change couldn’t possibly be responsible for recent weather extremes, and their actuarial adjustments reflect a belief in the Bad-Weather Tooth Fairy. But that doesn’t seem to be the thinking of Swiss Re, at least, which has published some serious literature about climate change and its impacts. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/206 "2014-02-23T21:57:15Z")
[_The Guardian:_](http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/05/denying-climate-change-scepticism-motivated-reasoning) Climate-change denialism is not “skepticism,” it is "motivated reasoning. > [@](#): > > So given the evidence is so strong against them, then why do these beliefs garner such passionate, vocal support? It’s tempting to say the problem is a simple misunderstanding, because increasing average global temperature can have paradoxical and counterintuitive repercussions, such as causing extreme cold snaps. The obvious response to this misunderstanding is to elucidate the scientific details more clearly and more often. > > The problem is that the well-meaning and considered approach hinges on the presupposition that the intended audience is always rational, willing to base or change its position on the balance of evidence. However, recent investigations suggests this might be a supposition too far. A study in 2011 found that conservative white males in the US were far more likely than other Americans to deny climate change. Another study found denialism in the UK was more common among politically conservative individuals with traditional values. A series of investigations published last year by Prof Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues – including one with the fantastic title, Nasa Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science – found that while subjects subscribing to conspiracist thought tended to reject all scientific propositions they encountered, those with strong traits of conservatism or pronounced free-market world views only tended to reject scientific findings with regulatory implications. > > It should be no surprise that the voters and politicians opposed to climate change tend to be of a conservative bent, keen to support free-market ideology. This is part of a phenomenon known as motivated reasoning, where instead of evidence being evaluated critically, it is deliberately interpreted in such a way as to reaffirm a pre-existing belief, demanding impossibly stringent examination of unwelcome evidence while accepting uncritically even the flimsiest information that suits one’s needs. > > The great psychologist Leon Festinger observed in 1956 that “a man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” This is the essence of the problem, and sadly, Festinger’s words ring true today: the conviction of humans is all too often impervious to the very evidence in front of them. > > Motivated reasoning is not solely the preserve of conservatives. While nuclear power has been recognised by the IPCC as important in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, staunch and uninformed opposition to nuclear power arises often from the liberal aisle. In the furore over the Fukushima nuclear disaster (which has claimed no lives and probably never will) many environmentalists lost sight of the fact that it was a natural disaster, very possibly exacerbated by climate change, that cost thousands of lives. Instead, they’ve rushed to condemn nuclear power plants. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/207 "2014-02-24T00:05:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You may choose to think so, but both the scientific evidence and the global insurance industry disagrees with you Do you disagree with the original assumption, or do you see a flaw in my logic? I have a few questions about your arguments to FX: First - I covered that in post #12. Second - Please detail this equilibrium state, do you mean natural warming trends or a purely balanced system? Third - If we’re measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, then our concern is how much energy is leaving the ocean, and in which form. Fourth - What is “climate instabilities”? Miami/Dade County has increased its population by a half million people since that last Category 5 Hurricane made landfall there. It’ll be a horrific disaster there when it happens again. There’s nothing about AGW that makes this the case, Miami/Dade County climate includes the occasional major hurricane (and so does New Jersey). ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/208 "2014-02-24T02:15:39Z")
And adding to the possible reasons for the cooling,[we have the really big players out there once again](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/volcanoes-contributing-to-hiatus-in-global-warming-study-20140224-33b3h.html#ixzz2uCZMipaD). > [@](#): > > “This is a complex detective story,” said Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that gives the most detailed account yet of the cooling impact of volcanoes. > “Volcanoes are part of the answer but there’s no factor that is solely responsible for the hiatus,” he told Reuters of the study by a team of U.S. and Canadian experts ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/209 "2014-02-24T02:18:17Z")
[http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html) > [@](#): > > Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability3, 4, 6, 7, external cooling influences1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors12, 13. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. Reality always trumps rhetoric ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/210 "2014-02-24T02:21:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Argument is wrong on at least four different levels. Can you just present evidence you think makes a difference? Claiming something is easy, showing why you think it is so, is educational. > [@wolfpup](#): > > First, still beating the dead horse about “no warming”. **The debate is over the issue** , you don’t get to declare victory, it doesn’t work that way. Rhetoric also isn’t scientific. Calling something a “dead horse” when it is a new topic, and the subject of a debate doesn’t advance your cause at all. It’s as unhelpful as posting “you are still wrong” or “you were shown to be wrong”, such talk convinces no one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/211 "2014-02-24T02:22:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Browse Articles | Nature Geoscience](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html) > Reality always trumps rhetoric Indeed. [Volcanoes contributing to hiatus in global warming: study](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/volcanoes-contributing-to-hiatus-in-global-warming-study-20140224-33b3h.html#ixzz2uCbFybXS) > [@](#): > > “Volcanoes give us only a \*\*temporary \*\*respite from the relentless warming pressure of continued increases in carbon dioxide,” said Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds. > > A study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year suggested that natural variations in the climate, such as an extra uptake of heat by the oceans, could help explain the warming slowdown at the planet’s surface. > > The IPCC projected a resumption of warming in coming years and said that “substantial and sustained” cuts in greenhouse gas emissions were needed to counter climate change. > > It also raised the probability that human activities were the main cause of warming since 1950 to at least 95 percent from 90 in 2007. Despite the hiatus, temperatures have continued to rise - 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have been this century, according to the World Meteorological Organisation. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/212 "2014-02-24T03:18:00Z")
What was the main cause of warming before 1950? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/213 "2014-02-24T03:59:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > What was the main cause of warming before 1950? [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/_b7319p-ZQI/hqdefault.jpg "Climate and Industrial Activity - Excursions in Science Radio Program") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b7319p-ZQI) > [@](#): > > Global warming discussion from a 1956-57 radio program called “Excursions in Science” presented by General Electric Research Laboratories. Program discusses Dr. Gilbert Plass and his climate research. In essence, many factors were causing climate change then, Plass mentioned volcanoes, sun activity and orbital influences, however as Plass reported not a single one was the main cause of the changes but the human factor was becoming clear, very influential and larger than the natural influences in the early 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/214 "2014-02-24T04:28:51Z")
[The heating since the 50s illustrated](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/104/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) Must have been some [powerful greenhouse effect going on](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/215 "2014-02-24T04:34:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you think that an unusually cold winter somehow discredits the hypothesis of a long-term anthropogenic global warming trend, you really don’t understand climate science at all. > > You can see that _on average_, February in Toronto has been getting noticeably warmer over the past half-century. The fact that you’re currently experiencing winter weather that is unusually cold for the past couple of decades (but would have been unremarkable in some of the decades before that) doesn’t mean that the general trend isn’t real. > > [Obligatory link to XKCD cartoon about “brutally cold” subzero weather in St. Louis](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold). > _Climate Change Denial. “Because what used to be normal now feels too cold.”_ Hey Kimstu, can I use your post in an OP for a new debate topic? I don’t want to clutter up this one with it anymore. FYI, the title text for the comic is: 'You see the same pattern all over. Take Detroit– ’ ‘Hold on. Why do you know all these statistics offhand?’ ‘Oh, um, no idea. I definitely spend my evenings hanging out with friends, and not curating a REALLY NEAT database of temperature statistics. Because, pshh, who would want to do that, right? Also, snowfall records.’ That’s the title text you get when you mouse over a xkcd comic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/216 "2014-02-24T04:44:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [The heating since the 50s illustrated](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/104/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) > > Must have been some [powerful greenhouse effect going on](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) And thank you for showing all that you did not check the radio show, Plass was referring the previous 60 years when the show was aired. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base\_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/107/00/tmp/ytd/12/1930-1980?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000) And clearly you cherry picked again. As usual we will find no researcher from NASA or NOAA supporting your failed efforts. On top of that the previous report you linked to does not really help to support your misunderstandings, but this is typical now. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/217 "2014-02-24T09:39:21Z")
I tend to assume people posting in this thread (itt) are interested in the subject, knowledgeable at least in some regard, and motivated to make points, find answers or at least preach down to the unwashed ignorant with your wisdom and grace. So when I read a statement **that does not define, state or even mention what is being talked about** , it’s easy to skip over it. For example, **in this post I am responding to the poor writing and lack of focus on content** , itt. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Argument is wrong on at least four different levels. What argument? Ignoring the horrific sentence structure “Argument is wrong”, because obviously that isn’t what you mean to say, WHAT argument? I’m sure it’s clear in your head when you type, but nobody else knows what you mean. State it up front, be clear. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Something to do with picking 2002 as the starting year, selecting a magic month, standing on one leg and closing one eye, and you can “see” that it’s cooling! As long as we continue to break and/or tie recent high-temperature records (and we are doing so) the argument is moot and on that basis alone we can expect the destabilization effects to continue and worsen. That makes it sound like you are still arguing that there has been no cooling, and all the studies, papers and scientific journals seeking to explain the cooling, are all wrong. Is that what you are claiming? And what do you mean by “ **the destabilization effects to continue and worsen** ”? What are you talking about? Seriously, what is “the destabilization effects”? What do you mean by “continue and worsen”? What will? When did it start? How will we know that is has become worse? I’m quite sure you have some idea, some thought when you type that out, but nobody else can know what you are talking about. > [@wolfpup](#): > > In the larger scheme of things the climate has barely even begun to respond to the highest level of CO2 in possibly about 15 million years. That sounds like you are saying there has been little response to the CO2 forcing since 1950 (not my figure), which goes completely against the mainstream view that most of the “warming” has been directly due to human created CO2. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, where are you coming up with that from? What does that mean? You see how difficult it is **to even understand what you are claiming** , much less how to respond in any scientific manner? Don’t do what GIGO do, it’s almost impossible to even understand what he is claiming, much less respond. I’m quite willing to respond to almost anything, but it’s like mush, a semi-solid tatseless bowl of undefined claims and terms. It’s quite reasonable to ignore nonsense in a debate, but I can’t even tell if it’s nonsense due to the poor communication. . > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And then the problem continues by not acknowledge how wrong you were with the sun spot charts, CO2 not causing warming and many other errors. See? What problem? Don’t say “the problem continues”, say what you think the problem is. Be concise, clear, state things. Do not use words like “it”, “that”, or “the problem” until after you state what you are speaking about. . > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And then the problem continues by not acknowledge how wrong you were with the sun spot charts, CO2 not causing warming and many other errors. What “problem” continues? Wrong about WHAT sun spot charts? Where did I say anything about CO2 not acting as a greenhouse gas? Much less that is hasn’t caused any warming? You just make up random things, no links, no evidence, and no sense of purpose, other than to repeat, once more., “you are wrong”, with nothing at all in your hand. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/218 "2014-02-24T09:45:38Z")
To continue, briefly, on the lack of communication. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thank you for showing all that you did not check the radio show, Plass was referring the previous 60 years when the show was aired. What radio show? If you post a link to a video or radio show, it’s on you to state what you are trying to claim. Nobody is required to leave the deabte and spend any time at all watching something you link to. If you wached or listened, then you tell us the key points. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And clearly you cherry picked again. As usual we will find no researcher from NASA or NOAA supporting your failed efforts. Cherry picked WHAT? That is a meaningless claim. There simply is no way to know what you are talking about. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > On top of that the previous report you linked to does not really help to support your misunderstandings, but this is typical now. And again, that is a meaningless statement. Even if somebody could fathom what you are trying to talk about, there is no way to respond to it. What report? What misunderstanding? What is “typical” now? The only thing I see as typical is this sort of random meaningless response that tells us nothing but your opinion on something that only you understand. My showing you a trend from 1950, to show temperatures wasn’t random, nor meaningless. But it was funny. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/219 "2014-02-24T13:14:27Z")
Let me rephrase, what caused global warming before 1500 BCE ? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/220 "2014-02-24T13:17:40Z")
Are you asking me? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=12)