# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/41 "2014-02-20T19:34:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Unlike this graph, [which shows 1980 - present](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1980/every:24/scale:100/offset:2) > > The green line is the NH January mean, one of the many things solar scientist knows well. […] > > Does it give the idea there might be some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity? Why are you specifically looking at the period 1980-present in connection with the claim that “there might be some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity?” Because if you look at the graph in your link plotted over longer periods, the “connection” appears random at best: [1950-present](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1950/every:24/scale:100/offset:2): “CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean” is sometimes correlated with “SIDC monthly sunspot number”, sometimes anti-correlated with it, and sometimes in between [1920-present](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1920/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1920/every:24/scale:100/offset:2): Same lack of consistency in correlation, only more so So why are you arguing for “some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity” based only on the 1980-present data, which doesn’t appear at all representative of the longer-term relationship between these two phenomena? ---
**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 20, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/42 "2014-02-20T19:36:56Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you quote the [American Institute of Physics](http://www.aip.org/) as an example of how established science is “completely false”, Once again, rhetoric rather than reality. I stated clearly that the statement on solar was false. > [@](#): > > Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, **gave results that were ambiguous at best**. That is false, completely false. That is what I said was false, your efforts to spin it will not advance your cause. Note they provide no source of their claim, which is absurd. There are lifetimes of work on the matter, and they hand wave it away with a statement, with no evidence at all. _SCIENCE_ of course tells a reality based story. > [@](#): > > Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500-year” cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally. [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130.short](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130.short) > [@](#): > > The timeline of the model was calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years before present. The calibrated model was compared with geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence of warm or cold climates during the Holocene. The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called “little ice ages,” similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280–1860 and reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years, corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output. [http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.short](http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.short) You can just say anything, but with out evidence, it is just words. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/43 "2014-02-20T19:37:13Z")
Putting the OP another way, does global warming mean that every must be new record high for global temperatures? If not than by definition there will be some years that are cooler than the previous years indicating a downward trend. When 2018 becomes the hottest year on record, I’m sure that FxM and his ilk will restart the clock and say that there has been no warming between 2018 and 2023 therefore global climate change is bunk. Regarding Ecco’s comments about the bad winter we’ve had in the Eastern US, I would point out that “Eastern US” is not equal to globe. Just ask the people in Sochi how their winter is going. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/44 "2014-02-20T19:53:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or **other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long** , gave results that were ambiguous at best. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > “A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s **‘1500-year’ cycle**.” […] > > “The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called “little ice ages,” similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280–1860 and **reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years** , corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output.” Emphasis added. **FXMastermind** , your links don’t appear to be talking about the same category of “solar cycle” that **wolfpup** was referring to. Even if Perry and Hsu’s proposed _1000±year cycle_ might produce significant climate forcing, that doesn’t rebut the statement that no solar cycle _up to a few centuries long_ has been found to have significant impact on climate. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/45 "2014-02-20T20:12:26Z")
The key word here is “significant”. We’ve only been measuring solar output directly since the 1960s. we’ll have to wait until the 2960s to say what the thousand year average is. The sun plays a roll in climate change, how much or how little is a question that has not been definitively answered yet. Just look at the numbers from this latest 11-year solar peak, much less than was expected, and there’s no explanation forthwithcoming from solar physicists. Our sun has proved to be not as stable as we would hope. ---
**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 20, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/46 "2014-02-20T20:31:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Why are you specifically looking at the period 1980-present in connection with the claim that “there might be some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity?” That period is in response to the deceptive graph from SkS, which claimed solar was going down, while temperatures just keep going up. It’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/47 "2014-02-20T20:44:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That period is in response to the deceptive graph from SkS, which claimed solar was going down, while temperatures just keep going up. It’s not true. You seem to be trying to rebut a comparison of two quantities by appealing to a different comparison of two different quantities. That is, the [skepticalscience.com graph you referred to](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif) compares trends in **total solar irradiance** and **global land-ocean temperature index from the NASA GISS dataset** between about 1885 and about 2005. You are claiming that that graph is “deceptive” on the basis of [your previously linked graph](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1980/every:24/scale:100/offset:2) comparing trends in **SIDC monthly sunspot number** and **CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean** between 1980 and the present. I don’t see why you think that the latter graph somehow refutes the former, or exposes it as “deceptive”. They’re talking about different things. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/48 "2014-02-20T20:53:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > > An almost childish view of the sun is illustrated in this graphic. > > [http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...Temp\_basic.gif](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...Temp_basic.gif) > > Note the graph from 1980 to “present”, which of course ends at some undefined point, with out showing the time period from 2002 to now Oh, I think I see at least part of the problem here, at any rate. **FXMastermind** , you appear to have misread the time axis of that [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) graph as beginning around **1980** , whereas it actually begins around **1880**. ---
**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 20, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/49 "2014-02-20T21:29:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You seem to be trying to rebut a comparison of two quantities by appealing to a different comparison of two different quantities. > > That is, the [skepticalscience.com graph you referred to](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif) compares trends in **total solar irradiance** and **global land-ocean temperature index from the NASA GISS dataset** between about 1885 and about 2005. > > You are claiming that that graph is “deceptive” on the basis of [your previously linked graph](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1980/every:24/scale:100/offset:2) comparing trends in **SIDC monthly sunspot number** and **CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean** between 1980 and the present. > > I don’t see why you think that the latter graph somehow refutes the former, or exposes it as “deceptive”. They’re talking about different things. Speaking about **FXMastermind** getting things wrong, by linking only to the image FXMastermind does not let others see that skeptical science does link to the science where that graph comes from. (Something FX claims that they don’t). > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ Specifically they link to the data and the groups that handle not only the past centuries, but also the period from 1978 to the present: > **[TSI Composite - PMOD/WRC](https://www.pmodwrc.ch/en/research-development/solar-physics/tsi-composite/)** > > vc\_row css=”.vc\_custom\_1644863254527{margin-top: -30px !important;}”vc\_columnvc\_column\_text Solar Constant: Construction of a Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time-Series from 1978 to the Present... And yes, they are referring to the total irradiance, not the number of sun spots, depending on how big the spots are, they could actually be a sign of \*\*less \*\* activity in total. > **[Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans/)** > > No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is, but solar changes cannot be the cause of the recent global warming > [@](#): > > It is true that sunspot records go back to the 17th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun’s radiation. It is the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun’s output and these were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot records may be out by as much as 30%. So, there are even more degrees of how wrong FX is here. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/50 "2014-02-20T21:30:33Z")
Oh, and now I think I see the other part of the problem: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > I haven’t seen anyone claim that solar variations don’t exist or “have no effect of any kind on climate”. > > Then you ignoring reality, or refusing to look. > > > [@](#): > > > > Since it is the Sun’s energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm) > > That is false, completly false. **FXMastermind** , you apparently didn’t finish reading the part of [your linked AIP article on _history_ of climate science](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm) (a quote from which I mistakenly attributed to **wolfpup** in a previous post, sorry about that) where it went on to discuss more recent research on solar-cycle/climate connections: > [@](#): > > […] Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. _Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts._ The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun’s activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century? By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations… but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases was far outweigh any solar effects. [emphasis added] So **wolfpup** was talking about the **current** state of climate science when he said that nobody’s claiming solar variations don’t exist or don’t affect climate. You offered as a counterexample a statement from a **historical** description of **mid-20th century** climate science, when it was not yet convincingly established whether or how solar variations affect climate. Once again, your cite doesn’t actually refute what **wolfpup** was saying, because it turns out to be talking about a different issue. ---
**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 20, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/51 "2014-02-20T21:35:13Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Oh, I think I see at least part of the problem here, at any rate. **FXMastermind** , you appear to have misread the time axis of that [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) graph as beginning around **1980** , whereas it actually begins around **1880**. Nonsense. I clearly stated why I showed a graph of that time period. It’s where SS claims solar started down, and the temperatures kept going up. Neither are true, The graph is a lie. ---
**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 20, 2014, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/52 "2014-02-20T21:38:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nonsense. I clearly stated why I showed a graph of that time period. > > It’s where SS claims solar started down, and the temperatures kept going up. > > Neither are true, The graph is a lie. Sorry, wrong again, you used graphs from solar spots, not total solar irradiation. ---
**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 20, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/53 "2014-02-20T21:41:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I haven’t seen anyone claim that solar variations don’t exist or “have no effect of any kind on climate”. I pointed to two examples. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Solar output does vary, but predominantly within a narrow band governed by the 11-year sunspot cycles with no overall net change in TSI and no net effect on global average temperature within the kinds of timeframes we’re discussing. That is false, and I can see why the climate modelers and the IPCC went wrong now. They probably still believe that as well. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/54 "2014-02-20T21:58:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That is, the [skepticalscience.com graph you referred to](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif) compares trends in **total solar irradiance** and **global land-ocean temperature index from the NASA GISS dataset** between about 1885 and about 2005. This graph bears very little resemblance to any other graph of solar activity I’ve seen. Is there a citation for the Skeptical Science data? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/55 "2014-02-20T22:06:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I clearly stated why I showed a graph of that time period. > > It’s where SS claims solar started down, and the temperatures kept going up. > > Neither are true, The graph is a lie. Why do you think so? As I noted above, the only “refutation” you seem to have provided is another graph which actually compares different quantities: > [@Kimstu](#): > > You seem to be trying to rebut a comparison of two quantities by appealing to a different comparison of two different quantities. > > That is, the [skepticalscience.com graph you referred to](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif) compares trends in **total solar irradiance** and **global land-ocean temperature index from the NASA GISS dataset** between about 1885 and about 2005. > > You are claiming that that graph is “deceptive” on the basis of [your previously linked graph](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1980/compress:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:1980/every:24/scale:100/offset:2) comparing trends in **SIDC monthly sunspot number** and **CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean** between 1980 and the present. > > I don’t see why you think that the latter graph somehow refutes the former, or exposes it as “deceptive”. They’re talking about different things. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Is there a citation for the Skeptical Science data? See the link given by **GIGObuster** five posts before yours. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/56 "2014-02-20T22:11:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > I haven’t seen anyone claim that solar variations don’t exist or “have no effect of any kind on climate”. > > I pointed to two examples. But one of your “examples”, as I noted a few posts ago, is actually your misreading of a **historical** description of climate science from a half-century ago or so, which is not the same thing as current climate science. And your other “example” doesn’t say what you claim it does: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. [Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm) To say that **recent** trends in solar activity and climate change are not correlated is not the same thing as to say “solar variations have no effect of any kind on climate”. ---
**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 20, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/57 "2014-02-20T22:12:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So **wolfpup** was talking about the **current** state of climate science when he said that nobody’s claiming solar variations don’t exist or don’t affect climate. Nobody needs to be told what he wrote, it’s still right there. Just like the following is still there. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, variation in solar activity [has been ruled out as a causal factor](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm) here. And yes, the claim that the TSI variation is so small it doesn’t effect climate was made, is still being made. The TSI has only been measured with accuracy for less than a decade, so there is no way the claims can be validated presently. TYhe difference between measurements was over 5%, and with the latest sat data we know the high energy UV varies by a huge amount. the effects and chemistry of the upper atmosphere is far from known, and changes in the thermosphere and mesosphere are hypothesized to have much greater effects on lower atmospheric wind patterns than anyone thought before. Same for ozone levels and destruction, like the situation in Antarctica. Heating from ozone loss is thought to have increased the circumpolar winds, causing drastic changes in overturning there, as well as changes in sea ice and precipitation, a theoretical explanation for the cooling there, not explained by any models so far. But these are vastly complicated issues. If we can’t agree on one simple thing, the temperature trend for an 11 year period, then how will any of this go forward? ---
**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 20, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/58 "2014-02-20T22:15:17Z")
Certainly there are hundreds of issues, many scientific, concerning climate, climate change, pollution and the state of the science. If you want to debate any of them, you can start a topic. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/59 "2014-02-20T22:15:22Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > See the link given by **GIGObuster** five posts before yours. Gigo’s link doesn’t reference the source of data from before the satellite data that starts at 1978. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/60 "2014-02-20T22:16:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody needs to be told what he wrote, it’s still right there. Good. Do you now understand that you were attempting to offer a counterexample to what he wrote by quoting a **historical** description of **earlier** climate science? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=4)