# 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:** 30
**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, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/581 "2014-03-06T13:32:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Those peer reviwed papers are based on real data, they are not making anything up, i regards to what we observe happening. 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? 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. 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. Meh, just empthy rethoric in the end, The OP’s article from Nature says that: > [@](#): > > Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase. As Latif showed, natural variavility was expected, as the scientists from the 70’s reported, more warming is coming. The OP then did go to claim that: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I checked all the data, and even GISS shows slight cooling since 2002. It is clear from looking at the GISS data that the cooling NH cold season, and especially the winter, is the reason the global mean is negative for a trend. And then we already checked, the papers you cited do not report that the whole globe is doing that, only some areas. So, you then reduced yourself to winter cherry picks that also omit what is happening in the whole earth. The only reason was in the end just to seed FUD about what is happening and what the scientists at NASA GISS and many other scientific organization are telling us: > **[Scientific Consensus - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/)** > > It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities > [@](#): > > Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. > > AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES > > ``` > Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations > > "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 > AAAS emblem > American Association for the Advancement of Science > > "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 > ACS emblem > American Chemical Society > > "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 > AGU emblem > American Geophysical Union > > "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 > AMA emblem > American Medical Association > > "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 > AMS emblem > American Meteorological Society > > "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 > APS emblem > American Physical Society > > "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 > GSA emblem > The Geological Society of America > > "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 > > ``` But according to you, they are a bunch of “nobodies”. Thing is that if you had stopped at the winter cherry picks there was not much of an issue, but we already know that with the cites from the deniers sources it is clear that your idea is to use the winters and debunked denial sources to avoid the rest as you said: “If the winters were warming, we would see large global warming taking place”. The reality is that only in some areas the winters are getting colder, and the warming of the globe is taking place. The last decade was warmer than the previous one, there was no cooling when the world and all the seasons are looked at. In the end the idea was to use the already expected mole hill of the natural variation to make it in to a mountain to be used to disparage what the scientists that manage the data continue to tell you: > **[Long-term global warming trend sustained in 2013 - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/vital-signs/long-term-global-warming-trend-sustained-in-2013/)** > > 2013 was the seventh warmest year since 1880 (tied with 2009 and 2006), continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. It has been 38 years since we had a year of cooler-than-average temperatures. > [@](#): > > NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday on temperatures around the globe in 2013. **The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago.** > > The average temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 Celsius), which is 1.1 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis. Exact rankings for individual years are sensitive to data inputs and analysis methods. > > “Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring.” ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/582 "2014-03-06T17:49:58Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Please explain how colder boreal winters, only (what you just cited), equals the world cooling overall (what your OP said). > [@MrDibble](#): > > At this point he’s just [repeating the same questions](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT)he’s already gotten answers to. Seriously, it’s one of the points in the OP > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It is clear from looking at the GISS data that the cooling NH cold season, and especially the winter, is the reason the global mean is negative for a trend. > > And to save time, the [GISS trend for NH warm season](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=0506&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows warming +.06 C > > [GISS trend for NH cold season shows 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=1106&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), - .10 C, which is greater than the warm season warming, [hence the GISS trend for the entire year, 2002-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows cooling. I would restate it, but there is no way to make it clearer. ---
**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, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/583 "2014-03-06T18:04:58Z")
This in no way means the long term trend is cooling. Nobody ever claimed that. The “why” is not clear, and there are over a dozen hypothesis to explain the short term cooling (the pause) There are also some who still deny there has been any cooling Some insist warming has actually increased which is why it’s a debate ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/584 "2014-03-06T18:42:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Seriously, it’s one of the points in the OP > I would restate it, but there is no way to make it clearer. That’s not the cite I was asking about - I was asking about the _Cohen,Furtado_ \*et al \*paper. Like I said, your creative use of the GISS maps has already been sufficiently demolished in this thread, no need to rehash it again. I’m asking, quite simply, how you read _that_ paper’s **specific wording** as saying _anything_ in support of global cooling when it _directly_ says **exactly the opposite** more than once. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/585 "2014-03-06T19:15:43Z")
If you quote something I said, I will respond. Or if you disagree withe something in a study, quote it. ---
**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, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/586 "2014-03-06T19:29:20Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If you quote something I said, I will respond. Or if you disagree withe something in a study, quote it. > [@](#): > > So there you have one more peer reviewed paper that in essence is saying exactly the same thing I did in the OP. It is saying no such thing. I don’t disagree with the paper, I disagree with your thinking it agrees with your OP when it clearly says different. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/587 "2014-03-06T20:19:39Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It is saying no such thing. I don’t disagree with the paper, I disagree with your thinking it agrees with your OP when it clearly says different. I admire your perseverance. What you state is in fact the persistent problem in trying to have the dialog that I’ve now given up trying to have. As a matter of information I want to say a couple of words about the last two papers that were cited by this individual. It follows a recurrent pattern where the papers are either garbage (like the one from Shaviv – or worse, denialist blogs), or else are legitimate papers whose scientific message turns out to be vastly different than what he claims. The paper cited in the OP being a case in point, and as you point out, the entire premise of the OP has already been debunked. Anyone can download the straightforward GISS temperature record or, for convenience, you can just cut and paste into Excel the [GISS temperature record 1980-2013](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17154038&postcount=340) that I posted. That stops that ridiculous digression right in its tracks. The Cohen paper is one of many that tries to correlate regional and seasonal variability with the general warming hiatus in order to improve the performance of AOGCM models. The paper notes that “the observed winter temperature trend spatially resembles the pattern of temperatures associated with the negative phase of the AO.” This is supported by other research such as that of [Overland et al. (2011)](http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/15787/html) who notes that: > [@](#): > > … The negative value of the winter (DJF 2009/10) North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index associated with enhanced meridional winds was the lowest observed value since the beginning of the record in 1865. Wind patterns in December 2007 and 2008 also show an impact of warmer Arctic temperatures. A tendency for higher geopotential heights over the Arctic and enhanced meridional winds are physically consistent with continued loss of sea ice over the next 40 years. What Cohen suggests and Overland et al. strongly support is the “warm Arctic - cold continents” theory where the observed phenomena are a direct consequence of accelerated Arctic warming: “… the typical polar vortex was replaced by high geopotential heights over the central Arctic and low heights over mid-latitudes that resulted in record snow and low temperatures.” These regional variations and circulation anomalies are important to model because they provide a more realistic spatial and temporal climate evolution than coarser energy budget models, not because they change the implications of AGW or the impact of CO2 forcing in any way whatsoever over decadal timescales. Understanding these issues is science; making claims like those in the OP is time-wasting bullshit. The other paper that is humorous to note is the one posted without comment, titled “Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming”. I don’t know why it’s posted without comment. Maybe it just turned up on a Google search involving water vapor and global warming and he never read it. Maybe it seemed in some vague way to refute my argument that water vapor is a feedback. Again, let’s explore some actual science. It’s actually an excellent paper, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, stratospheric water vapor is a special case unlike water vapor in the rest of the atmosphere. The stratosphere actually cools if the troposphere warms due to GHGs, which of course is just what’s happening. The water vapor in the stratosphere – distinctly unlike the lower atmosphere – has no direct relationship to global temperature and has been both increasing and decreasing over the past several decades. Some of it is attributable to complex factors inducing flux from the upper troposphere, and some from methane oxidation and other factors. The water from methane oxidation can properly be regarded as a forcing. These processes are completely different than anything that happens in the troposphere. The important point to note here is that the paper is addressing the stratospheric water vapor phenomenon as a mechanism for decadal-scale climate variability, not as a factor in persistent long-term climate forcing. In fact stratospheric water vapor isn’t even broken out as a separate forcing any more in the AR5. As a side note, Susan Solomon, the principal author of that 2010 paper, is a former distinguished scientist at NOAA and currently a professor of atmospheric chemistry and climate science at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, contributing author of the IPCC TAR and co-chair of the IPCC AR4 WG1. It’s ironic that our friendly neighborhood denialist has referenced it because that very paper is prominently cited in the IPCC AR5. I bold the relevant part for the impatient; the others can read the whole thing, and even refer to the full relevant sections which are online. > [@](#): > > RF for stratospheric water vapour produced from CH4 oxidation is 0.07 [0.02 to 0.12] W m–2. **Other changes in stratospheric water vapour, and _all changes in water vapour in the troposphere_, are regarded as a feedback rather than a forcing.** {2.2.2, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3; FAQ 8.1} ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/588 "2014-03-06T21:02:46Z")
🆒 Excellent post **wolfpup** [makes mental note of never getting into a fight against \*\*wolfpup \*\*on scientific issues] ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/589 "2014-03-06T21:24:40Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It is saying no such thing. I don’t disagree with the paper, I disagree with your thinking it agrees with your OP when it clearly says different. > [@MrDibble](#): > > At this point he’s just [repeating the same questions](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT)he’s already gotten answers to. > [@](#): > > 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) Just like the maps I provided in the OP, and the cold season vs warm season maps, for 2002-2014, which shows this clearly. The warm season shows warming, the cold season shows cooling. The winter is cooling so much, the global mean since 2002 (for GISS) is negative. But the warm season is not, it still shows warming. How much clearer can it be? ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/590 "2014-03-06T21:50:29Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > [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) What we can sure is that you are still unaware of what it concludes: > [@](#): > > Based on previously reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected. And this is after you claimed the “nobodies” never expected that. I agree with **MrDibble** , it does not really agree with your OP when it clearly says different. And it is to late to claim that now you understand that the planet has indeed warmed (after cherry picking timelines, surface temperature and only winters), your use of denier links and discredited sources to also claim that the current warming is not driven by human emissions showed that the real idea was to seed FUD here. ---
**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 7, 2014, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/591 "2014-03-07T06:18:23Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > So there you have one more peer reviewed paper that in essence is saying exactly the same thing I did in the OP. No, it isn’t. Not even in the weaselly “essence” is it saying the same 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 7, 2014, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/592 "2014-03-07T10:43:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, it isn’t. Not even in the weaselly “essence” is it saying the same thing. I understand you disagree, that much is obvious. You have to explain why you do, that’s a debate, or argument. Just like the data in the GISS maps, abundantly linked to in the OP, and in other posts. If you think they don’t show what they do, then it’s a debate. Just saying " the weaselly “essence” is useless. It’s actually worse than useless, as it is just insipid rhetoric, not a scientific argument at all. For example, even the GISS data show a very slight cooling, for there global mean. The trends are asymmetric, [GISS trend for NH warm season](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=0506&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows warming +.06 C [GISS trend for NH cold season shows 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=1106&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), - .10 C, which is greater than the warm season warming, [hence the GISS trend for the entire year, 2002-2013](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows cooling. The NCDC, HADcrut, MSU, RSS and Crutemp all agree with GISS, though some show much greater cooling for the NH cold season, and especially winter, -.16 C for the global trend DJF 2002-2013 from the NCDC Here’s the point where you either disagree with the data (denier) or you somehow change the subject, if you want to avoid or deny the facts. Because the above it factual. Or, you do the “so what?”, as if a trend of cooling, when it should be warming, means nothing. Or, as I have seen, some right wing fossil fuel backed group uses this to claim there is no global warming. The fact that the warm season is still going up, as well as spring and fall (usually) warming, that is climate change. But it’s not AGW as the current theory and models predicts. So it’s a conundrum. The colder winter trend is climate change. If this really is from CO2, if this is what anthropocentric climate change is (pun intended), that’s important to know. Some mechanisms claim it is. Others claim the CO2 warming is masked or hiden by other factors, and this is not CO2 driven climate change. There are all kinds of complicated musings, ideas, assumptions and hypothesis at the moment. But that isn’t this topic. As we see, just the fact of what is observed, is a contentious and hard fought battle. Just to come up with a shared view of reality, that is an argument. Hell, one person looks at the exact same GISS map and declares it says nothing. Another looks at the maps and sees clearly the cold winters are the reason for “the pause”. Another claims they won’t even look. Another shrugs his shoulders and says “So what?”. The bias is thick, horrific actually. Anyone can simply check the major data sets at [woodfortrees](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002), but not at any great level of detail. [CRUTem3 NH](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002.9/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002.16/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002.08/every:12/plot/crutem3vnh/from:2002/trend) clearly shows the cooling for DJFM, and even the [RSS MSU satellite data](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002.9/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002.16/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002.08/every:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend) shows the winter trend, even at a global level. I know nobody who is arguing against the OP has bothered to check. or they did a terrible job of it. I know this for a fact. Now about the Cohen et al papers … ---
**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 7, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/593 "2014-03-07T10:57:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What we can sure is that you are still unaware of what it concludes: Unless you actually read the paper, including the [Summary and Conclusions](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf), you might be fooled by one cherry picked line. Or need somebody to tell you what it says. I believe if you want to debate, and a scientific paper is part of the argument, you must read it and I know if you do, you will agree that they state, in clear terms, that the NH winter shows cooling, while the other seasons do not. They also note that no model predicted this. And only 10% predicted a flat trend for winter. the important thing is they are looking for a cause, not if the trends exist. in this topic, the argument is still over what Cohen et al simply states as facts. In multiple papers. And what the Nature paper in the OP states as a fact. None of the papers are about “oh look at this trend”, they are ALL about explaining it. That it has happened is just a fact. There is a lot more involved, but if there is a constant argument over “it happened”, then science goes nowhere. ---
**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 7, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/594 "2014-03-07T11:38:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I understand you disagree, that much is obvious. You have to explain why you do, that’s a debate, or argument. I disagree because **nowhere** in their paper do they say there has been **global** cooling. In fact, they **explicitly** say there _has_ been **global** _warming_. “Little to no warming” is not the same as “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 7, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/595 "2014-03-07T12:58:52Z")
Ah, the semantic hurdle. Lets try, and I mean really try, to come to an agreement on what words mean, in regards to this topic. Cooling trend - Warming trend - Also what the mean temp anomaly means. > [@](#): > > The average earth land surface temperature, Tavg, is a key indicator of climate > change. Detailed analyses of Tavg have been reported by three major teams: the > National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; see Menne et al. > [2005]), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS; see Hansen et al. > [2010]), and a collaboration of the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office with > the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU; see Jones et al. [2003], Brohan et > al. [2005]). [http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf](http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf) Things like that. Certainly if I restated every instance of “cooling” with “no warming”, the entire topic would be politically correct. ---
**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 7, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/596 "2014-03-07T13:27:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Unless you actually read the paper, including the [Summary and Conclusions](http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL2012.pdf), you might be fooled by one cherry picked line. Or need somebody to tell you what it says. > > I believe if you want to debate, and a scientific paper is part of the argument, you must read it and I know if you do, you will agree that they state, in clear terms, that the NH winter shows cooling, while the other seasons do not. What is clear is that it is you the one that is avoiding the big picture, They acknowledge that according to reported analysis of the observations and modelling studies this is neither inconsistent with a warming planet nor unexpected. What was unexpected was the \*\*\*asymmetric \*\*nature of the cooling in some areas of the norther hemisphere (that still remains a cherry pick by avoiding to look at the whole globe). For all the talk of following semantics you are the one that also disregards it, just like you disregard the scientists that you call “nobodies”. - On the title of the paper. ---
**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 7, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/597 "2014-03-07T14:00:09Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Ah, the semantic hurdle. Sure, the difference between warming and cooling is mere semantics. Suuuure.:dubious: > [@](#): > > Lets try, and I mean really try, to come to an agreement on what words mean, in regards to this topic. No, let’s use the generally understood meanings. As opposed to your private meanings, where you consider “cooling” and “little to no warming” to be interchangeable. Basically, for you, anything less than 1°/year of warming is cooling, isn’t it?:rolleyes: ---
**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 7, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/598 "2014-03-07T15:15:11Z")
Like I said, lets try to come to an agreement on some terms. Avoiding doing so is unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/599 "2014-03-07T16:01:23Z")
\*\*FX, MRDibble, \*\* Now this might lead to a clear debate and illuminate where the specific points of disagreement are. Especially if the snark is kept out of it. Hopeful… ---
**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 7, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/600 "2014-03-07T16:13:27Z")
I’ll debate with **FX** when he answers straight questions rather than misdirects back to JAQing off. If he wants us to define terms like “warming” and “cooling”, _he_ can start. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=31)