# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/541 "2014-03-05T16:06:44Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > He appears to have admitted it (by way of stating something along the lines of “it’s ok to do that”), I haven’t seen him deny it except regarding a recent one about Shaviv. > > Did you ask him? He has not admitted using the app, regardless how you would like to spin his words, and he has denied it (either in this thread or in e-mails–I am not going back to find the denials). In any event, it really is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to change the discussion topic from that of the OP to where any given poster finds information is nothing more than an _ad hominem_ hijack. If the information is erroneous, dispute the information. If the argument is poorly presented or off-topic, challenge it. Do not derail the thread by playing guessing games about the source of a post. [/Moderating] ---
**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 5, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/542 "2014-03-05T16:12:06Z")
BTW **RaftPeople** , The take home lesson is that I used even a science magazine to report how a team of scientists debunked Shaviv, FX has found a way to not deal with that. This is why his explosion was done, to distract to the fact that he has no good reply to that debunking done by scientists. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/543 "2014-03-05T16:21:28Z")
Ok, that’s fine I will follow your instructions. Having said that: This: “regardless how you would like to spin his words” - is an emotional response. I’m not spinning anything. If he isn’t using it I already stated then no problem. If he is using it then it absolutely is a problem. And he appeared to admit it. The reason why it’s a problem is that it’s not truly a response to the post, it doesn’t really address the ideas within the post, it’s just tangentially related. This is why I believed he was using it, because his responses frequently miss the point of the post, they don’t actually address it. And that is a huge problem in a debate if it’s due to the use of program. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/544 "2014-03-05T16:30:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW **RaftPeople** , The take home lesson is that I used even a science magazine to report how a team of scientists debunked Shaviv, FX has found a way to not deal with that. This is why his explosion was done, to distract to the fact that he has no good reply to that debunking done by scientists. The point wasn’t about Shaviv, it was about whether you use an app in general to find responses. ---
**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 5, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/545 "2014-03-05T16:33:35Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > The point wasn’t about Shaviv, it was about whether you use an app in general to find responses. Shaviv is the point, don’t stall. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/546 "2014-03-05T16:42:49Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Having said that: > This: “regardless how you would like to spin his words” - is an emotional response. > > I’m not spinning anything. If he isn’t using it I already stated then no problem. If he is using it then it absolutely is a problem. And he appeared to admit it. It is not an emotional response. It is a specific description of the way that you chose to infer that GIGO was using an app when he not said that he was doing so. If you have any more issues with this point, take it to ATMB and stop hijacking this thread. GIGO, that goes for you, as well. Stick to addressing the OP. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/547 "2014-03-05T17:00:06Z")
Cosmic rays effect climate … an experiment is [being built](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) to test this hypothesis. If we increase cloud cover, our albedo would increase which puts downward pressure on temperatures. I look forward to seeing CERN’s results. We know temperatures have fallen in the past, perhaps the keys to understanding this current very short term trend can be found by understand how nature removes CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/548 "2014-03-05T17:15:02Z")
Ok, moving on, and dealing with what the OP claimed: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > "Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. > [@](#): > > Much more here > > [http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord\_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region\_id=&Issue\_id=](http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=) Well, besides not quoting published science that only shows the opinion of Shaviv and a denier like Inhofe posted it on his site. The trouble remains that Shaviv is still wrong. As the Eos team showed. > **[Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Rebuttal of Shaviv and Veizer](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html)** > > Ocean and Climate Science > [@](#): > > Conclusions > > Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated. > > Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO2-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/549 "2014-03-05T17:21:24Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Cosmic rays effect climate … an experiment is [being built](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) to test this hypothesis. If we increase cloud cover, our albedo would increase which puts downward pressure on temperatures. I look forward to seeing CERN’s results. We know temperatures have fallen in the past, perhaps the keys to understanding this current very short term trend can be found by understand how nature removes CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere. As the CERN people reported, there is not much there on the cosmic rays. > **[From the Horse’s Mouth. The New Study on Cosmic Rays and Climate.](https://thinc.blog/2011/08/31/from-the-horses-mouth-the-new-study-on-cosmic-rays-and-climate/)** > > Here’s the Nature podcast interview with Jasper Kirkby, author of the new study that has denialists all atwitter (again) over cosmic rays. Briefly, the theory is that cosmic rays hit the atmo… > [@](#): > > Dr. Kirkby’s take, as you hear in the interview — not so much. > > From the Editor’s summary in Nature: > > > [@](#): > > > > Even with the large enhancements in rate caused by ammonia and ions, they conclude that atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary layer nucleation. > > There are more questions to answer. > If cosmic rays have an effect on climate, we should expect that, given the unequivocal warming of the last 40 years, there should be a corresponding trend in cosmic rays. And we don’t see one. > > Moreover, solar experts tell us, the sun has been in an extended minimum for several years now. > > Since we are in an extended solar minimum, that recent work suggests may get even deeper and longer, the cosmic ray idea would predict — > > low solar activity –\> > > lower solar magnetic fields –\> > > more influx of cosmic rays –\> > > more ionizing of atmosphere –\> > > more cloud nuclei –\> > > more clouds –\> > > greater reflectivity –\> > > lower temps for the last few years, and more cooling to come. > > There’s a problem with this idea. We are not observing such a cooling. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/550 "2014-03-05T17:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > lower temps for the last few years, and more cooling to come. > > There’s a problem with this idea. We are not observing such a cooling. OK now that is funny. Really really funny. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/551 "2014-03-05T17:25:30Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Cosmic rays effect climate … an experiment is [being built](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) to test this hypothesis. If we increase cloud cover, our albedo would increase which puts downward pressure on temperatures. I look forward to seeing CERN’s results. We know temperatures have fallen in the past, perhaps the keys to understanding this current very short term trend can be found by understand how nature removes CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere. [Very](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/) [old](http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm) [news](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x). > [@](#): > > The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/552 "2014-03-05T17:27:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OK now that is funny. Really really funny. As usual, that only works by ignoring what NASA and GISS reported, the warming is still there, other reasons are there for the “pause” (not cooling) observed in the surface temperatures. The oceans (that last I checked are part of the earth) are warming still. The sun is not the main driver of the current warming now. And regardless of what Shaviv thinks, he is not convincing other scientists that he is correct. He is only convincing deniers like senator Inhofe. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/553 "2014-03-05T17:29:25Z")
[Toon from Ted Rall.](http://rall.com/) ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/554 "2014-03-05T17:29:43Z")
[January trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) The global mean is -.14 C [Even a longer trend shows the cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). It’s why the solar influence may be a factor. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/555 "2014-03-05T17:31:13Z")
Solar influence meaning “it’s gotten cold as fuck in the NH winter”. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/556 "2014-03-05T17:36:00Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [January trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > The global mean is -.14 C > > [Even a longer trend shows the cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > It’s why the solar influence may be a factor. As even the research you quoted early showed, that only happens in some regions, the warming continues to increase decade by decade, as NASA continues to report. Your cherry picks are now reduced to winter and ignore all the rest of the seasons. As CERN reported and the team of scientists from EOS reported, your sources are wrong, and you continue to abuse the good data. ---
**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 5, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/557 "2014-03-05T17:56:45Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Again, what do you mean by “forcing”. I have from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing) “In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.” In which case, water vapor is the dominate gas radiating energy out into space. Obviously, this isn’t what you mean, so please elaborate. You seem to be confused on several different levels. What you quote is first of all a definition of the overall forcing _process_, not of an individual forcing _agent_. If you scroll a little further down, you’ll see the IPCC definition of a forcing agent or factor (“Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism.” You will also see in the radiative forcings chart (and a little further down, in "changes in radiative forcings between 1979 and 2012) that water vapor is nowhere to be found\*. Why do you suppose that is? Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Due to the [Clausius–Clapeyron relation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly proportional to temperature, so water vapor is incapable of acting as an independent forcing variable. But it’s OK, [FX didn’t understand that either](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17030924&postcount=135) and [even doubled down on it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031133&postcount=138) and added [a further amusing rant over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17068419&postcount=1704). Why is it always denialists who don’t understand science? The difference between a feedback and a forcing is really really basic science. Frankly I don’t blame **MrDibble** for getting a little impatient and questioning the scientific qualifications of some to discuss this topic at all. * * * - The IPCC chart actually has a very small component called “stratospheric water vapor” which is a uniquely special case. * * * > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Cosmic rays effect climate … an experiment is [being built](http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud) to test this hypothesis. If we increase cloud cover, our albedo would increase which puts downward pressure on temperatures. I look forward to seeing CERN’s results. We know temperatures have fallen in the past, perhaps the keys to understanding this current very short term trend can be found by understand how nature removes CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere. As someone already said, this is neither new nor particularly significant in terms of magnitude of potential effects. The CERN CLOUD experiment is only the bare beginning of a better understanding of ionization-induced nucleation. At this point it’s far from clear whether cosmic rays have any influence on climate at all, let alone whether they can trigger cloud formation significant enough to incorporate into climate models – a fact which is clearly stated in CERN’s own research summary. Moreover, the well established physics of GHG’s and observations of past climate changes confirm beyond any doubt that GHG’s are always the primary drivers of sustained globally sychronous warming, which is consistent with a plethora of other studies setting low maxima on the extent to which solar variability can affect climate. Mainstream scientists like Peirs Forster (one of the lead authors in the IPCC AR4) were already studying the potential effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation, and were very interested in these results while remaining appropriately skeptical about what importance, if any, such results might hold until much, much more evidence is obtained. It was funny when the CERN paper first came out, purveyors of junk science and some of the media were loudly declaring that this had revolutionized climate science, a declaration that they tend to make roughly every couple of months every time another new study comes out that the purveyors exaggerate out of all reason and the media just doesn’t understand. ---
**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 5, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/558 "2014-03-05T19:31:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Your cherry picks are now reduced to winter and ignore all the rest of the seasons. And after I use [the annual global mean](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), -.01 C, the goal post will not only be moved, they will be “completely changed” to, “the ocean is warming still, we just can’t measure it”. So, the actual data doesn’t matter. Not to the person who has already made up their mind. ---
**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 5, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/559 "2014-03-05T20:45:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > And after I use [the annual global mean](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), -.01 C, the goal post will not only be moved, they will be “completely changed” to, “the ocean is warming still, we just can’t measure it”. > > So, the actual data doesn’t matter. Not to the person who has already made up their mind. Piffle, you are still using surface temperature data, a short period and we have enough measurements of the warming of the ocean. And still ignoring what the scientists at NASA and GISS are telling us. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/560 "2014-03-05T21:39:27Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Do you have another cite for that? The above citation doesn’t support your assertion. BTW, how are we defining “forcing” here? > Please enlighten me. And what’s with the hostility? > Again, what do you mean by “forcing”. I have from [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing) “In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.” In which case, water vapor is the dominate gas radiating energy out into space. Obviously, this isn’t what you mean, so please elaborate. Nu-uh. Not going to play [this fucking game](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17076884&highlight=forcing#post17076884) with you again. You clearly know nothing about the science, you refuse to be educated about the topic, at this point it begins to seem like more than just ignorance on your part, since I addressed the very questions you’re repeating here, in that linked thread. Seems like I should just refer you to that thread from here on in, I said all I need to about your debate tactics there, and I can’t say anything pertinent in GD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=29)