# 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:** 29
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/561 "2014-03-05T21:43:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. It’s not only his scientific qualifications I’m questioning, as he’s had this very thing explained to him before. At this point he’s just [repeating the same questions](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT)he’s already gotten answers to. ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/562 "2014-03-05T22:49:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, you are still using surface temperature data, a short period … The OP is clearly using the land+ocean mean to determine the trends, as is the Nature paper quoted in the OP. Like I said, the goal posts get not only moved, the goal is completely changed. If the ocean temperatures were dropping, (they are), the warmist would change the story again. For example, if the ocean+land temps were showing warming, and somebody said the ARGO network showed the deep ocean had cooled (the amounts are .01 C over a century), the warmer would not then say the world is cooling. of course not. But because the land+ocean mean is dropping, they insist the heat has somehow stopped warming the world, and is only warming the deep oceans. That is actually what they are claiming. It actually could be true as well. If so, then the AGW theory is completely wrong. It’s a real conundrum. ---
**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, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/563 "2014-03-05T22:59:23Z")
As far as the slander by blog of an actual top solar scientist, who publishes in actual real scientific journals, about actual scientific findings, it’s pathetic. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Regarding Dr. Nir Shaviv: > > [http://www.desmogblog.com/nir-shaviv](http://www.desmogblog.com/nir-shaviv) > > [RealClimate: Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/) So the in the warmist mind a couple of blog s written by nobodies is the equal of publishing refutations and being part of the comments and letters of a real science journal. In the warmer Universe, you don’t have to actually discuss science, or read an actual scientific paper, by a top scientist in the field. No, you just write stuff on a blog and declare victory. That’s how the blog expert does science. For those interested, the peer reviewed paper on the sun and climate by Shaviv and Veizer is available here for free. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/564 "2014-03-05T23:56:21Z")
Everyone can see that you are going back to around the last cite I made, that is certifiably pathetic. > **[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 > [@](#): > > We thus find that there is no significant correlation of the CRF curve from Shaviv’s model and the temperature curve of Veizer, even after one of the four CRF peaks was arbitrarily shifted by 40 m.y. to improve the fit to the temperature curve. There also is no significant correlation between the original meteorite data and the temperature reconstruction. The explained variance claimed by [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] is the maximum achievable by optimal smoothing of the temperature data and by making several arbitrary adjustments to the cosmic ray data (within their large uncertainty) to line up their peaks with the temperature curve. > > Regression of CO2 and temperature > > The final argument of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] – that CO2 has a smaller effect on climate than previously thought – is based on a simple regression analysis of smoothed temperature and CO2 reconstructions. [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] conclude that the effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration on tropical sea surface temperatures (SST) is likely to be 0.5ºC (up to 1.9ºC at 99% confidence), with global mean temperature changes about 1.5 times as large. Thus they claim that the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is around 0.75 ºC, outside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change range of 1.5-4.5ºC (misquoted as 5.5ºC in [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]) [IPCC, 2001]. Note, however, that their maximum global sensitivity of 2.9ºC lies well within the accepted range. > > A critique of the CO2 and temperature reconstructions used in [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] will be published by Royer et al [in press], who correct Veizer’s d18O record for the effect of changing pH. This effect has been demonstrated in culture [Spero et al., 1997] and explained theoretically [Zeebe, 1999; Zeebe, 2001]. The result is a corrected climate record that no longer follows the cosmic ray model but correlates well with the Geocarb III CO2 reconstruction. > > [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] challenge the credibility of the CO2 reconstructions by showing two divergent alternatives to the well-known Geocarb III model, by U. Berner (not documented in the scientific literature) and by [Rothman, 2002]. [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] argue that the disagreement between the reconstructions reveals them to be in need of „validation“, but ignore the large literature of paleosol, stomatal, and carbon and boron isotopic data, which support the Geocarb reconstruction [Royer et al, in press]. > > Irrespective of the data quality, the simple regression method of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] is unsuitable to estimate the climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. The main reasons are that (i) other forcing and feedback factors may co-vary in a statistically dependent way with CO2 and cannot be separated, (ii) the operation of some climate feedbacks depends on the time scale considered, and (iii) the strength of climate feedbacks depends on the mean climate. As for your continuing attempts at propping up the sorry OP’s cherry picks, you still need to produce a researcher from NASA and GISS that thinks you are doing the right thing with your short time lines. ---
**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 6, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/565 "2014-03-06T00:01:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > As far as the slander by blog of an actual top solar scientist, who publishes in actual real scientific journals, about actual scientific findings, it’s pathetic. > So the in the warmist mind a couple of blog s written by nobodies is the equal of publishing refutations and being part of the comments and letters of a real science journal. Those “nobodies” at Realclimate are Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt. From Penn State and NASA. Once again you only show all that what you accuse others of doing slanders when in reality you do it with gusto. Shaviv is wrong, happens to the best, but he is being employed by the worst of the deniers. You are only showing all the ignorance that you have. ---
**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 6, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/566 "2014-03-06T00:16:07Z")
Here is another “[nobody](http://www.eoearth.org/profile/Rasmus.benestad/)”: > **[RealClimate: A Galactic glitch](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/)** > > RealClimate: Knud Jahnke and Rasmus Benestad After having watched a new documentary called the 'Cloud Mystery' - and especially the bit about the galaxy (approximately 2 - 4 minutes into the linked video clip) - we realised that a very interesting... > [@](#): > > So it seems that Shaviv’s “periodicity” estimate for crossing of spiral arms by the sun does not hold up under scrutiny when using current astronomical results as the work by Kranz et al. This comes in addition to the previously shown fact that the correlation of cosmic ray flux with paleoclimatic data proposed by Shaviv and Veizer (2003) only arises “by making several arbitrary adjustments to the cosmic ray data” (Rahmstorf et al. 2004). > > Note also that the question of current climate change is quite another matter from that over time scales of many millions of years – despite Shaviv’s remarkable press-release claims that “The operative significance of our research is that a significant reduction of the release of greenhouse gases will not significantly lower the global temperature”. As we repeatedly pointed out over the years: that global warming over the past decades is not linked to cosmic rays is clear from the fact that the cosmic ray measurements over the past 50 years do not show any trend (Schiermeier 2007). > > Remarkably, the poor scientific basis of the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis seems to be inversely related to the amount of media backing it is getting. At least 3 documentaries (‘The Climate Conflict’, the ‘Global Warming Swindle’, and now ‘The Cloud Mystery‘) have been shown on television – all with a strong thrust of wanting to cast doubt on the human causes of global warming. Indeed, just prefabricated FUD when one takes into account the lack of support Shaviv has gotten after more than 10 years of coasting on research that continues to be loved by deniers. It is becoming clear that he is not only wrong with his research but also with his early declarations that he was going to get a lot of support. ---
**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 6, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/567 "2014-03-06T01:52:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, you just write stuff on a blog and declare victory. That’s how the blog expert does science. > > For those interested, the peer reviewed paper on the sun and climate by Shaviv and Veizer is available here for free. For those interested, this is the last time I’m providing a detailed response to you. I’m done wasting my time. I suppose I should provide an explanation. Most folks here are pretty knowledgeable about science, and I thought I was engaging in a debate with someone who simply didn’t agree with me and with whom I could discuss the issues. I see now that I’ve been “debating” someone who has not the most fundamental grasp of science; who doesn’t understand how water vapor works in the atmosphere, and posts an incoherent rant about it; posts papers about solar variations that he clearly doesn’t understand; can’t see the difference between hundred-million-year trends ten-year trends; gets the behavior of jets streams backwards; tries to refute the consensus on solar variations with a paper about UV that proves the opposite, and so on. All the links to those discussions are in this thread and also in a few others. No offense, but I’m done. Let others with more patience deal with it. That stuff about Shaviv has already been pretty well addressed, but for what it’s worth, I’ll just say this. Of course the article is free. It’s a ten-year-old piece from an open access journal, the low standards of which [we’ve just been discussing here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17166697). It was quickly refuted [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/) by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, two of the most currently respected and published climate researchers. The funniest part is that the actual Shaviv article didn’t even claim what you and the blogs and right-wing rags tried to claim – it actually stated that “our conclusion about the dominance of the CRF [cosmic ray flux] over climate variability is valid only on multimillion-year time scales”. Indeed the title of the paper pertains to Phanerozoic timescales – the past 545 million years. And it was shoddy even in that respect. It ends with reference to a now thoroughly discredited 1997 Lindzen paper about “stabilizing negative feedback”, which now has about the same scientific status as the tooth fairy. So it should be no surprise that the subsequent decade of research has failed to lend a shred of credence to it, but has continued to support the consensus view which is quite the opposite. The scientific consensus isn’t represented by some lone crackpot even if he hadn’t been discredited, but by the preponderance of evidence as I described and linked from the [National Academy of Sciences](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17161114&postcount=441), [the IPCC](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17116875&postcount=493), and other national and international advisory authorities which take into account the entire body of contemporary research distilled from thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from reputable journals. I’m happy to debate climate science and I’m anxious to continue doing so with those who have a genuine interest, but I’m done wasting my time with bullshit. Have a nice day. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/568 "2014-03-06T02:01:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Shaviv is the point, don’t stall. No. But I guess I’m not surprised that you don’t get that. ---
**Author:** ![Uqbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/a587f6/32.png) [@Uqbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uqbar)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/569 "2014-03-06T02:18:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Trying to re-frame, restate, or twist my words, rather than respond to them. ``` FXMastermind's view is something like: the debate I'm generating IS my attack of the human-induced adverse climate change scientific majority view, and goes to help proving they're wrong. My view would be something like: to even enter into a debate presumes the scientific majority view is wrong, which is a highly improbable premise. I say NO. I will not go past this premise because it is so improbable and requires an overwhelming amount of shout-from-the-rooftops, banner-headline-type evidence to even entertain my crossing past it (into FXM's Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole; the OP being used as a foil to create a trail (11, 12?) pages long with his chestnuts (road apples) sprinkled along the way). And worse, the minute you enter into debate with him, YOU COULD BE TAKEN AS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTING THIS (highly improbable) condition as probable. FXM's view seems perfectly reasonable to him/her, because he/she DOES NOT see the probabilities the way I do; each view is based on our own interpretations of the probabilities; so we have to ask, WHOSE PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT SEEMS MORE ACCURATE? Two lawyers sit down to discuss quantum field theory. Lawyer A has memorized or has available a series of various facts and his shakey / shady / erroneous interpretations of them which "prove" there are little ghosts making the IC's work in his/her computer. Lawyer B hasn't a leg to stand on in this "debate" because he/she doesn't know enough about the field theory to debate effectively. Lawyer B, "foolishly", has trusted the experts to this subject (the quantum field theorists, courtesy of societal division of labor, while he/she's been slaving away through law school and beyond to satisify the needs for his/her area along the labor divide). Lawyer B's mistake is in not calling out lawyer A on his/her improbable premise (vis-a-vis the run-around on the output of the experts). Instead lawyer B is immediately gulled into scrambling for facts to do with quantum field theory. FXM and others in his/her boat, you ARE being humored, tremendously here by these good people willing to debate with you... (btw FXM, your "rebuttals" to my last post were disappointing. I see smoke and mirrors, obfuscation, equivocation, debate "techniques" like trying to turn the primary points made against you back against the sender simply by restating them in big red letters, LOL) ``` ---
**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 6, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/570 "2014-03-06T02:27:37Z")
Published Online January 28 2010 Science 5 March 2010: Vol. 327 no. 5970 pp. 1219-1223 DOI: 10.1126/science.1182488 RESEARCH ARTICLE **Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming** > [@](#): > > Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/571 "2014-03-06T02:36:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. But I guess I’m not surprised that you don’t get that. Magellan, for God’s sake. No fewer than four times in the last day has a moderator in this thread said to give the personal comments a rest. This is a warning for disregarding moderator instructions. Now everyone just cool it or bad things will get worse. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/572 "2014-03-06T02:39:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > For those interested, this is the last time I’m providing a detailed response to you. I’m done wasting my time. I suppose I should provide an explanation. > > Most folks here are pretty knowledgeable about science, and I thought I was engaging in a debate with someone who simply didn’t agree with me and with whom I could discuss the issues. I see now that I’ve been “debating” someone who has not the most fundamental grasp of science . . . FWIW, I am interested, and I’m not very “up” on climate science. You and **GIGObuster** have done a good job in covering the facts, citing evidence, and explaining the material in ways that a non-scientific reader can follow. Your presentations are convincing, and have the ring of both sincerity and integrity. So…if it’s any comfort…I like how you’ve conducted yourself here. You’ve helped educate a lot of people who are reading this thread (and others.) ---
**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 6, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/573 "2014-03-06T03:02:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So…if it’s any comfort…I like how you’ve conducted yourself here. You’ve helped educate a lot of people who are reading this thread (and others.) Thanks, **Trinopus** , that does mean a lot. And I appreciate it. ---
**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 6, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/574 "2014-03-06T04:06:33Z")
**wolfpup** , I have to thank you also, I know that it is hard to deal with reheated baloney, but having someone like you in these discussions is priceless. Do not let the ones that are willing to call scientists “nobodies” get you. This comes with the territory. What is important is to show always what are the actual levels of support the very few researchers left that are contrarians do have. It is clear that many are also refusing to accept what are the real levels of support that contrarian scientists actually have. And they also ignore that history also teaches us that there are scientists like Dr. Seitz that allowed their “beautiful” flawed theories to be used by the deniers of the dangers of tobacco first and then were used by the deniers of the human contribution to the current warming. > **[Dr Frederick Seitz – Climate Denial Crock of the Week](https://climatecrocks.com/tag/dr-frederick-seitz/)** > > Posts about Dr Frederick Seitz written by greenman3610 Transcript of the video is here: [http://www.allreadable.com/vid/32000-scientists-545020.html](http://www.allreadable.com/vid/32000-scientists-545020.html) And a thank you to \*\*Trinopus \*\*too. ---
**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 6, 2014, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/575 "2014-03-06T09:26:30Z")
The [December](http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12), [January](http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1)and [February](http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2) snow trends for the NH clearly show the same thing the NCDC and GISS data does, colder winters, with more snow, that is the trend. Real scientists of course are aware of this and much research is being done. Predicting the future is an important part of science, and when it comes to climate change, there is a lot of money on the table. The information in the following two papers shows clearly how current science deals with reality, rather than saying it isn’t happening. The trend of cooling for the NH high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter, and how the models got it wrong. The part I bolded is about the models. > [@](#): > > **The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter**. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone. Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007/) > [@](#): > > We propose that the large melting of Arctic sea ice may be related to the rapid advance of snow cover, similar to the connection made in studies of past climates between low Arctic sea ice and enhanced continental snowfalls and glacial inception via ice sheet growth. Regressions between autumnal sea ice extent and Eurasian snow cover extent and Northern Hemisphere temperatures yield the characteristic “warm Arctic/cold continents” pattern. This pattern was observed during winter 2012/2013, and it is common among years with observed low autumn sea ice, rapid autumn snow cover advance, and a negative winter Arctic Oscillation. **Dynamical models fail to capture this pattern, instead showing maximum warming over the Arctic Ocean and widespread winter warming over the adjacent continents**. We suggest that the simulated widespread warming may be due to incorrect sea ice-atmosphere coupling, including an incorrect triggering of positive feedback between low sea ice and atmospheric convection, resulting in significant model errors that are evident in seasonal predictions and that potentially impact future climate change projections. [http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-4\_cohen.html](http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-4_cohen.html) They are obviously saying the models are wrong, and that it is global warming causing the events. However interesting, that is actually another topic. I introduce these papers once more, **as support for what the data actually shows**. That what the data shows is under dispute, that is remarkable actually. Why would anyone deny reality like that? Those peer reviwed papers are based on real data, they are not making anything up, i regards to what we observe happening. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As for your continuing attempts at propping up the sorry OP’s cherry picks, you still need to produce a researcher from NASA and GISS that thinks you are doing the right thing with your short time lines. There is an example of denial at work. The very thought that it isn’t still warming like crazy, why is that such anathema to some? Since it’s actually impossible to counter the facts, we see efforts to change the debate to something else. This is not the same as debating the issue at all. And why do some simply refuse to even look at the data? But rather dispute looking at the data has any meaning at all? > [@wolfpup](#): > > For those interested, this is the last time I’m providing a detailed response to you. I’m done wasting my time. … In my experience, that claim is always followed with a very long post, asserting how right the author is, and how wrong his opponent must be. We were not disappointed. > [@Uqbar](#): > > FXMastermind’s view is something like: the debate I’m generating IS my attack of the human-induced adverse climate change scientific majority view, and goes to help proving they’re wrong. Once again, we see the tactic of “you are not worth debating”, combined with trying to state what my view is, rather than just quoting my words, an effort to spin things, and then argue with your own creation. It’s easy to burn your own straw man, isn’t it? Meanwhile, the science and facts remain, untouched by any rhetoric. I note that once again, my important point about how spring summer and fall still show warming, is just ignored. In essence, if the winters were flat, no change, we would still see the global mean rising. If the winters were warming, we would see large global warming taking place/ That is actually an important thing. ---
**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 6, 2014, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/576 "2014-03-06T09:32:54Z")
> [@Uqbar](#): > > ``` > I say NO. I will not go past this premise because it is so improbable and requires an overwhelming amount of shout-from-the-rooftops, banner-headline-type evidence to even entertain my crossing past it > > ``` Thanks. You can be sure of two things. One, it will indeed be headline news at some point. Two, I will get no credit for it. While I first realized this was happening in 2010, nobody will remember that. Meanwhile, actual top researchers have already published this news, and nobody shouted it from the roof tops yet. Once again, I have bolded the part that is essence is saying the models were wrong. The red is about the winters. > [@](#): > > **Current consensus on global climate change** predicts > warming trends driven by anthropogenic forcing, **with > maximum temperature changes projected in the Northern > Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes during winter**. Yet, global > temperature trends show little warming over the most > recent decade or so. For longer time periods appropriate to > the assessment of trends, however, global temperatures > have experienced significant warming trends for all seasons > except winter, when cooling trends exist instead across > large stretches of eastern North America and northern > Eurasia. [http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal\_GRL2012.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf) So there you have one more peer reviewed paper that in essence is saying exactly the same thing I did in the OP. (and you can be sure I was unaware of the paper, or I would have put it in the OP) Balls in your court. ---
**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 6, 2014, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/577 "2014-03-06T10:07:12Z")
Please explain how colder boreal winters, only (what you just cited), equals the world cooling overall (what your OP said). Cohen is very careful to link the observed continental cold with coupled warming of the Arctic. Also, explain how, in your head, “little warming” translates to “cooling”. Please explain how, in your mind, you get “global cooling” from " only Northern Hemisphere (NH) extratropical land surface temperatures during boreal winter display a systematic waning of the warming trend to a near-neutral trend of late.". Lastly, please explain what, in your view, is the more important measure of global climate, oceanic temperatures, or land surface temperatures. Feel free to justify your answer. ---
**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 6, 2014, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/578 "2014-03-06T10:10:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Most folks here are pretty knowledgeable about science, and I thought I was engaging in a debate with someone who simply didn’t agree with me and with whom I could discuss the issues. You keep trying to discuss everything except the issue the topic is actually about. Your first post was a blanket dismisal, with no evidence to support your opinion. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Far be it from me to interrupt this fantasy with facts, but… well, not really. I like facts. Here are some. And your second didn’t speak to the topic under debate at all. So don’t try to pretend you took the high road. > [@wolfpup](#): > > A few points of clarification, or maybe “perspective” would be a better word. > > The fact that other inter-glacial periods hit higher peak temperatures than we have today might lead someone to conclude that we were due for higher temps all along, and that this is just a natural series of events. In regards to the topic, the winter issue certainly hasn’t been ignored by those who report on such things. Jan 23, 2013 > [@](#): > > Without a doubt, extreme cold-winter events have become more frequent across Eurasia in recent years, and climate scientists have been rather taken by surprise: **frozen winters in Eurasia were not predicted by climate models**. [http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/52135](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/52135) Jan 13, 2012 > [@](#): > > Now research suggests that **colder winters have become more frequent over the past two decades** , and were likely a product of global warming. [http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) Friday 1 February 2013 > [@](#): > > Overall the world is warming,\*\* so what is going on with winters across Europe and Asia\*\*? > > Xiangdong Zhang, a climate scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, analysed the weather patterns over the last thirty years and has shown that the extreme winters are associated with a strong Siberian high pressure system, hovering over Eurasia, which sucks cold polar air down to mid latitudes. [Weatherwatch: Boris was right winters are getting colder | UK weather | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/feb/01/weatherwatch-boris-johnson-cold-winter) The essential facts, which are denied by the warmers, are simple, and can be verified. Large areas of the NH winter are trending colder The global mean is going down, since at least 2002, but most data says 1995 The colder winters are the reason the global mean is going down I’ve presented data and actual evidence for all of that, anyone can check for themselves. ---
**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 6, 2014, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/579 "2014-03-06T10:16:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Please explain how colder boreal winters, only (what you just cited), equals the world cooling overall (what your OP said). How ironic. That is explained, with evidence, in the OP. > [@MrDibble](#): > > At this point he’s just [repeating the same questions](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT)he’s already gotten answers to. ---
**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 6, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/580 "2014-03-06T13:11:09Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > How ironic. That is explained, with evidence, in the OP. Err, no, it wasn’t. There’s no explanation there for why a short-term, regional, land-based phenomenon has veto rights on the overall warming trend. And your “evidence” was debunked pretty soon thereafter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=30)