# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/361 "2014-03-02T16:37:46Z")
I’ll dial back on my snark too … I’m sorry I’ve strayed from **magellan01’s** beautiful thought here. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/362 "2014-03-02T16:40:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Who is implying that? That is more accurate, I grant you that; you \*\*did \*\ ***declare** , not implied, that “all the models are flat wrong.” Like your continuing refusal to acknowledge how in the past researchers noticed and recorded the “pauses” and expected to see more in the future, you are also wrong with this one. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/363 "2014-03-02T16:45:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is more accurate, I grant you that, you \*\*did \*\ ***declare** not implied that “all the models are flat wrong.” Like your continuing refusal to acknowledge how in the past researchers noticed and recorded the “pauses” and expected to see more in the future, you are also wrong with this one. Could you give the post #, I’ll have to read the context he said that and then I’m going to need to know which models we’re talking about. Otherwise I’ll stand on what I said at the time. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/364 "2014-03-02T17:02:36Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Could you give the post #, I’ll have to read the context he said that and then I’m going to need to know which models we’re talking about. Otherwise I’ll stand on what I said at the time. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > No global warming based science source wants to even use the word “cooling” in describing global annual temperatures. > > Most don’t even want to talk about the NH boreal winter cooling trends, much less admit the Pacific ocean has trumped everything. And that all the models are flat wrong. There were other declarations like that and on post #350 I replied to once again his ongoing theme that “The recent trend, most unexpected, predicted by no climate models”. Actually, the team that Latif belongs had models that expected that, and many others since the 70’s. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/365 "2014-03-02T17:11:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The recent trend, most unexpected, predicted by no climate models That is the topic of this debate thread … the debate about humans being benign is on another thread. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/366 "2014-03-02T17:18:47Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That is the topic of this debate thread … the debate about humans being benign is on another thread. And he is still wrong about his use of cherry picks to claim that the recent trend is for cooling, even on that FX is wrong. That was also my point. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/367 "2014-03-02T18:12:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What graph do you hope to find? If you’re hoping to eyeball a graph of the total heat content of all the oceans of the world at all depths then you’re not going to find it. But the Argo network and many others have done marvels in giving us an enormous amount of information about SSTs, circulation systems, and other important ocean phenomena, as well as some deep-ocean readings. That’s what the Balmaseda paper draws upon – if the underlying evidence was complete it wouldn’t be a hypothesis, it would be a simple fact. > > There have been many other papers on short-term climate changes in the past caused by changes in ocean heat uptake – [Foster et al. for instance](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/), and there’s [new research by England et al.](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html) on remarkable changes in Pacific circulation systems that supports Balmaseda’s basic hypothesis. Thanks for your direct and honest response regarding the ocean data and it being a hypothesis. It sure makes it easier to discuss with this approach. The obvious next questions are: Are there weaknesses that other scientists have found that would reduce our confidence in that paper/model? I’m going to do some googling on this particular topic. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/368 "2014-03-02T18:50:29Z")
I don’t usually use blogs as a source, but this entry is pretty damn sweet, concerning the ocean temps and Argo and such. > **[Argo, Temperature, and OHC • Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/#more-104125)** > > Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I've been thinking about the Argo floats and the data they've collected. There are about 4,000 Argo floats in the ocean. Most of the time they are asleep, a thousand metres below the surface. Every 10 days they wake up... ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/369 "2014-03-02T18:58:19Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I don’t usually use blogs as a source, but this entry is pretty damn sweet, concerning the ocean temps and Argo and such. > > [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/#more-104125](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/#more-104125) Why I suspected it was going to be Willis Eschenbach? (And lets not forget how using Watts Up With That is like using Answers in Genesis on a biology discussion) > **[Willis Eschenbach](https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/)** > > Willis Eschenbach Credentials Background Willis Eschenbach is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change, where he is described as a “carpenter and house builder” as well as an “amateur scientist.”1... Indeed, a blogessor with no expertise on the issue. IIRC it came out that he also posted in the past in the SDMB but even a real scientist like \*\*jshore \*\*was not impressed at all; suffice to say, at first glance one can notice that Willis is not reporting what other measurements were done before Argo was there. > **[RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/)** > > RealClimate: The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming. NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat... ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/370 "2014-03-02T19:07:01Z")
I told you I don’t like blogs, too much bias. But that animation was sweet. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/371 "2014-03-02T19:47:03Z")
Makes me seasick [grin] ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/372 "2014-03-02T20:45:09Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I told you I don’t like blogs, too much bias. > > But that animation was sweet. > > 😉 Wily Coyote vs. Road Runner animations are kind of sweet, too, but I don’t consider them a reliable demonstration of Newtonian physics. 😃 (Although they’re probably more accurate than the WUWT blog has ever been!) ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/373 "2014-03-02T20:47:09Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > You’ve not stated the time frame for this 3ºC increase. How long will it take for man-kind to add an additional 160 ppm? We’ve only added to date 120 ppm, and this was done without a lot of pollution considerations. Are you assuming that there will be no technology in the future that will suppress these emissions? Are you assuming that natural forces won’t have any effect at all? 1. Climate sensitivity isn’t based on a “time frame”, but rather based on climate response to CO2 increase at the point of equilibrium 2. I’m not “assuming” anything. I’m stating the outcome based on the most probable values of climate sensitivity. How long this will take depends on the extent to which we’re able to curtail emissions, which are commonly described in terms of IPCC emissions scenarios. The former scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) have now been superceded by a new set called Representative Concentration Pathways, which are named in terms of net anthropogenic forcing in the year 2100, RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 (W/m\*\*2). The first represents a drastic curtailing of emissions, the last is business as usual; both are unlikely. Strangely enough the two most likely scenarios [intersect in around the year 2060](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.png) before diverging, at around 550 ppm CO2. So that’s your likely timeframe for the CO2 doubling. But since transient response of the climate takes decades and equilibrium many centuries, the temperature increase will lag, but the CO2 level basically commits the future temperature trajectory. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > You said above that temps were going up 3ºC, here you’re saying temps are going up less than a half of a degree. Which is it? The former is the projected equilibrium global mean surface temperature increase from pre-industrial levels for a doubling of CO2. What you’re looking at in the ocean charts is the _present_ differential in _sea water temperature_ relative to the _1981-2009 mean_! **Every one** one of the three emphasized points makes the comparison invalid! > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I’d like to see a more detailed explanation from you on what exact these models are. You seem to rely heavily on these results, yet in the literature I’m finding that they are still subject to quite a bit of “tweaking”. Just throw me a bone and give me the algorithm of the CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations you stated above. If you mean the RCP projections, there are some good tutorials you can Google for – [start with this one](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/30/climate-change-rcp-handy-summary). If you mean climate sensitivity, there’s no possible “algorithm” for that like there is for forcings; estimates are based on a combination of paleoclimate (observations of how the climate responded to CO2 increases in the past), present observations, and modeling. It’s usually represented as a probability density function with plausible values between about 1.5 and 4.5ºC, very tightly bounded on the low end but not on the high, with the highest probabilities centering around 3. ---
**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:** [March 2, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/374 "2014-03-02T22:44:07Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Thanks for your direct and honest response regarding the ocean data and it being a hypothesis. It sure makes it easier to discuss with this approach. > > The obvious next questions are: > Are there weaknesses that other scientists have found that would reduce our confidence in that paper/model? > I’m going to do some googling on this particular topic. Well thanks, I guess. :dubious: I don’t know when I _haven’t_ been honest and direct. Are there weaknesses in Balmaseda et al.? I’m not aware that it’s ever been seriously challenged on any factual basis, though one or two of the usual skeptics have informally opined that there is insufficient evidence for the mechanisms of deep-ocean warming. On the contrary, the recent England et al. paper I mentioned provides more support for it and proposes just such a mechanism. Matthew England himself [provides a good commentary about the paper here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/). Well worth a read. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/375 "2014-03-03T00:02:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well thanks, I guess. :dubious: I don’t know when I _haven’t_ been honest and direct. I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t honest or direct. That statement was due to the fact that **GIGO** presented the data in that paper as if it was based on pure data, no models filling in the gaps, etc., and then refused to respond when I questioned him about the raw data vs models other than to give one of those emoticons indicating something (not sure what) and point back to the same data. You, on the other hand, were just straightforward with what was in the paper. That’s what I appreciate. I don’t need spin from either side, just want to know what are facts, what are models, what are opinions, etc. > [@](#): > > Are there weaknesses in Balmaseda et al.? I’m not aware that it’s ever been seriously challenged on any factual basis, though one or two of the usual skeptics have informally opined that there is insufficient evidence for the mechanisms of deep-ocean warming. On the contrary, the recent England et al. paper I mentioned provides more support for it and proposes just such a mechanism. Matthew England himself [provides a good commentary about the paper here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/). Well worth a read. I’ll check it out. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/376 "2014-03-03T00:21:48Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t honest or direct. > > That statement was due to the fact that **GIGO** presented the data in that paper as if it was based on pure data, no models filling in the gaps, etc., and then refused to respond when I questioned him about the raw data vs models other than to give one of those emoticons indicating something (not sure what) and point back to the same data. > > You, on the other hand, were just straightforward with what was in the paper. > > That’s what I appreciate. I don’t need spin from either side, just want to know what are facts, what are models, what are opinions, etc. Thank you, but I completely disagree with your comments about **GIGO** , who has been putting in a superhuman effort at countering the nonsensical bilge that tends to bloviate from some quarters around here (not you), and has been doing it for much longer than I’ve been around in this forum. And always with well-referenced citations, and often having to contend with grace against sometimes snarky and uninformed commentary from what appear to be scientific illiterates (again, not you). He deserves recognition for his patience, knowledge, and perseverance. And with that, back to the topic at hand. Do read the England guest post, it gives some good background about the paper. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/377 "2014-03-03T00:24:02Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t honest or direct. > > That statement was due to the fact that **GIGO** presented the data in that paper as if it was based on pure data, no models filling in the gaps, etc., and then refused to respond when I questioned him about the raw data vs models other than to give one of those emoticons indicating something (not sure what) and point back to the same data. Of course then it follows that you are saying that I’m dishonest. In reality I noticed that \*\*wolfpup \*\*answered, I don’t have time for everything and I was also trying to figure out how far you have progressed from our previous encounters. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > You, on the other hand, were just straightforward with what was in the paper. > > That’s what I appreciate. I don’t need spin from either side, just want to know what are facts, what are models, what are opinions, etc. Of course previous encounters showed that you have a huge trouble of accepting what scientists are doing with models, one can make the point that there is a difference between models that could be used to make predictions from the ones that are used to deal or are based on empirical data. IIUC one difference is that others can investigate if the techniques used are valid as others can check if the model that uses empirical data can recreate real readings from specific areas (making it more likely that other areas that are missing are recreated with very good accuracy). As \*\*wolfpup \*\*reported others have checked; so, one overall point stands, what Kevin Trenberth and other scientists report is indeed more than just their opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/378 "2014-03-03T00:44:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Thank you, but I completely disagree with your comments about **GIGO** , From my first involvement in climate threads **GIGO** has accused me of being a “denier”, that my own personal analysis was taken from “denier” web sites, refuses to acknowledge any valid point that might lead somewhere counter to his pre-defined world view and consistently is unable to understand the implications of key points. All of that because my position (supported by climate scientists) is that the climate is very complex and modeling it such that we can make predictions as it moves into new territory is very very difficult. That’s my controversial position. **GIGO** does not comprehend the level of complexity in the climate system and the difficulty in modeling it. This is not to say that models should not be used, it merely means that it is difficult to create one that is truly accurate, it takes a lot of time and energy. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/379 "2014-03-03T00:49:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > All of that because my position (supported by climate scientists) is that the climate is very complex and modeling it such that we can make predictions as it moves into new territory is very very difficult. > > That’s my controversial position. > > **GIGO** does not comprehend the level of complexity in the climate system and the difficulty in modeling it. This is not to say that models should not be used, it merely means that it is difficult to create one that is truly accurate, it takes a lot of time and energy. Point of order, many times I explained that if that had been your original point I would not had complained much, but that was not how you started, your position against models was more absolutist, I can say that I have no issue with your modified position (from then) over here. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/380 "2014-03-03T00:58:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course then it follows that you are saying that I’m dishonest. I’m not going to call it dishonest, just not straightforward like **wolfpup**. I asked him to clarify and he responded openly immediately. I asked you to clarify and you refused to respond. > [@](#): > > I don’t have time for everything and I was also trying to figure out how far you have progressed from our previous encounters. I have repeatedly and patiently attempted to engage you in a rational open discussion, just like the one **wolfpup** and I are having. > [@](#): > > Of course previous encounters showed that you have a huge trouble of accepting what scientists are doing with models, one can make the point that there is a difference between models that could be used to make predictions from the ones that are used to deal or are based on empirical data. I’ve built multiple computer models/simulations for complex systems. Given that I’ve done that, I think it’s safe to say I think they can be valuable. But I also understand how difficult it can be to accurately simulate a complex system. Do you? > [@](#): > > IIUC one difference is that others can investigate if the techniques used are valid as others can check if the model that uses empirical data can recreate real readings from specific areas (making it more likely that other areas that are missing are recreated with very good accuracy). As \*\*wolfpup \*\*reported others have checked; so, one overall point stands, what Kevin Trenberth and other scientists report is indeed more than just their opinion. Of course, there is value to the models. Do you think that I think there is no value to using the models? I don’t think you could even write out what my position is, you don’t even understand it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=20)