# 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:** 31
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/601 "2014-03-07T16:26:02Z")
Not quite as hopeful… Okay, I have to ask: why is it important that he start to define the terms? You’re both trying to define the terms to your mutual agreement. It seems to me that if you’re genuinely interested in having a serious discussion, leaving any vitriol/annoyance/snark/childishness aside might be more productive. But maybe by the time this posts FX will have satisfied your desire and started the ball off. Fingers crossed. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/602 "2014-03-07T16:58:59Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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. The evidence that FX misdirects is already obvious to many, the reality is that he will always avoid what the “nobody” scientists at NASA and GISS conclude, post #3 is always avoided. It does not matter is NASA follows the most common definition of warming in this context, warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on Earth. FX’s cherry picks are clear once one looks at what the winters are doing in the long view with the tool that he uses to only look at the short trend: [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year\_last=2013&month\_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean\_gen=1203&year1=1950&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1950&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob) Winters have been getting warmer on average as “nobody” NASA researcher Gavin Schmidt reports. > **[RealClimate: The Nenana Ice Classic and climate](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/the-nenana-ice-classic-and-climate/)** > > RealClimate: I am always interested in non-traditional data sets that can shed some light on climate changes. Ones that I've discussed previously are the frequency of closing of the Thames Barrier and the number of vineyards in England. With the... ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/603 "2014-03-07T17:04:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay, I have to ask: why is it important that he start to define the terms? Because he’s the one begging off on “semantics” and claiming we need to “define” such esoteric technical terms as “warming” and “cooling”. He makes it a semantics argument, he gets to start. > [@](#): > > You’re both trying to define the terms to your mutual agreement. I’m perfectly happy to use the common definitions - the ones where “warming” and “cooling” are not equivalences, and where “regional” and “global” aren’t synonyms. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that if you’re genuinely interested in having a serious discussion, leaving any vitriol/annoyance/snark/childishness aside might be more productive. Straight-up asking him questions hasn’t been really productive, thus far. I get shit like “MYOB” - that’s a _woooonderful_ debate strategy, that is. ---
**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 7, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/604 "2014-03-07T18:10:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Okay, I have to ask: why is it important that he start to define the terms? Let me try to explain why by example; it’s just one example of many, and it’s one I’ve talked about before but it’s especially relevant here, so bear with me. **FX** will make statements like “let me show you why the claim “water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver” is a made up and false statement” ([reference](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17030924&postcount=135)) and then say that ““Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing”, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up. You won’t find it in a textbook, or any scientific paper, or even on a real climate science page.” ([reference](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031133&postcount=138)). When I point out [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031279&postcount=142) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17031337&postcount=143) that you most certainly can, there is no response for a long time. Eventually, after lots of prodding, he claimed somewhere in the Pit (I don’t have the link handy) that what he meant was that _that exact sentence_ doesn’t appear in any climate science textbook. :rolleyes: Probably not – what textbooks have is _entire chapters_ discussing the feedback behavior of water wapor; this is fundamental and basic science. These are the kinds of games he plays. And I’m not saying this to be snarky or insulting but to answer your question. He engages in semantics when he is backed into a corner over incorrect claims. So now it becomes a new semantic game of “slow warming” = “cooling”, using, as I’ve pointed out, painfully convoluted and cherry picked data sets to try to show the point. A point which, as I and many others have pointed out, is irrelevant in the first place (see below). It’s basically impossible to have a serious discussion with him. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. This is the kind of laughably ludicrous drivel that was presumably the intent of starting this absurd thread in the first place. The _scientific issue_ here is to better understand regional climate anomalies; in particular, to more accurately model persistent negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. In the delusional world of denialism, however, it somehow becomes perverted into a pretext for discrediting AGW. That’s why we get (further on) phrases like “IF this really is from CO2 …” and links to garbage papers like Shaviv with misinterpretations thereof trying to blame solar variations for everything. Which is the implied premise in the OP, else one would wonder what the hell the point ever was of starting this otherwise pointless thread. As indeed a number of astute posters here have already pointed out. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I know nobody who is arguing against the OP has bothered to check. I checked. And then I provided the actual annual means from 1980 to 2013 in case anyone wanted to make their own plots with meaningful data. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/605 "2014-03-07T18:18:58Z")
The emotional response is counterproductive, and I see it as a sign of unscientific behavior. If GISS shows a -.10 C trend for a 14 year period, that means a cooling trend. If GISS shows a .06 C trend, that is a warming trend. By definition a 14 year period is a short term trend, and a 30 year trend is a longer period, and 1930-2013 is a long term trend. 12000 bp to present is a long term trend. But bringing in long term trends is just a sidetrack to avoid looking at recent changes, which are obvious, and unexpected. As it was stated, no model predicted winter cooling, and only 10% predicted a flat trend for winters. In fact, winter is predicted by 90% of the models as showing the most warming, especially at high latitudes. ---
**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, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/606 "2014-03-07T18:32:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But maybe by the time this posts FX will have satisfied your desire and started the ball off. Fingers crossed. So much for that, eh? No defining of terms yet. ---
**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 7, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/607 "2014-03-07T19:39:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The emotional response is counterproductive, and I see it as a sign of unscientific behavior. There’s nothing “emotional” about pointing out the facts that I observe. As for “unscientific”, anyone interested in a scientific discussion would have based it on any of the topics actually being discussed in the papers that have been referenced here or many others instead of a delusional misrepresentation of them. The thread title of a science-focused discussion might have been “Is the recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling?” (OP paper), “Is accelerated Arctic warming creating colder continental winters?” (Overland, 2011), or “What causes asymmetical seasonal temperature trends?” (Cohen, 2012). If anyone is interested in the science pertinent to this particular discussion, [I provided a brief summary here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17169395&postcount=586). But what we get from you instead is a topic title that reads like the blaring headline of a cheap tabloid found at supermarket checkouts instead of a science article, and all the pseudo-scientific distortions and claptrap to match including the hilarious implication that AGW is now a failed theory. Which isn’t surprising, given [your history and obvious agenda](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17122677&postcount=27) on this subject. ---
**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 7, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/608 "2014-03-07T20:07:00Z")
All right. Again, stay focused or prepare to be closed. I have deep doubts anything’s being accomplished here and all parties should head to a neutral corner and take a break. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/609 "2014-03-07T20:25:48Z")
_Nature_ published [a peer reviewed paper](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html) showing that since 2001 the planet has not warmed. 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. We could view each season, but just using 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 Warming means that over the time period the mean is going up, so that it is on average warmer at the end of thr time period, than at the start. The [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. Which is unexpected, and the winter cooling is masking the warming that is happening the rest of the year. 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 THE NCDC DATA show much more cooling for the same period. (GISS, like all of them, does no match any other data set) You can 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. Woodfortrees key Red is December Blue is January Purple is February Green is March And for good measure the [GISS LOTI data](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002.9/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002.16/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002.08/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend) from woodfortrees If you disagree with any of this, we can have a debate. A stupid short debate, as it’s impossible to deny that ALL the data sets agree that there has been slight cooling. If you [start the GISS trend in 1997](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1997&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) you can get an annual trend of +.11 C However, [the winter trend starting in 1997](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2014&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1997&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) is already negative. So something changed after 2000, so that The NCDC data show the NH winter trend from 1998 at -.17 C a decade. The SH summer trend is positive. +.01C Which is why I used 2002, as even GISS shows a global cooling trend starting then. But many other data sets show cooling since 2000, or before. NH boreal winter trends are negative since 1988 in large areas, all are negative since 1992. What does it mean? ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/610 "2014-03-07T20:56:51Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > _Nature_ published [a peer reviewed paper](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html) showing that since 2001 the planet has not warmed. …and what do the primary two papers _cited by that paper_ as their evidence for this say (my emphases)? “\*\*Claims that global warming is not occurring \*\*that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural variability and **are misleading** ”(Easterling, D. R. & Wehner, M. F. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36) and “The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. **There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming**”(Foster, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 6) There you go, then. Now, care to define the terms “cooling” and “warming”? ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/611 "2014-03-07T21:03:35Z")
There are two unrelated clims there. “Claims that global warming is not occurring” and “The resultant adjusted data” Neither means anything in regards to what is observed. The first is saying, as we have seen multiple times in this topic, “Just because there is a cooling trend for 17 years that doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming”. The second is claiming “If we remove the sun (which is funny of course), ocean and wind changes, air pollution, and volcanoes, the global mean still went up” Neither negates the observations, of factual data. In an ironic twist, both claims are the result of realizing that there has been no increase (trend) in the global mean. The first says it doesn’t mean anything, the second says all kinds of things caused it, and they hadn’t happened, we would see warming. Neither says it didn’t happen. The slight decrease in the global mean. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/612 "2014-03-07T21:43:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There are two unrelated clims there. > > “Claims that global warming is not occurring” > > and > > “The resultant adjusted data” > > Neither means anything in regards to what is observed. The first is saying, as we have seen multiple times in this topic, “Just because there is a cooling trend for 17 years that doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming”. > > The second is claiming “If we remove the sun (which is funny of course), ocean and wind changes, air pollution, and volcanoes, the global mean still went up” > > Neither negates the observations, of factual data. In an ironic twist, both claims are the result of realizing that there has been no increase (trend) in the global mean. > > The first says it doesn’t mean anything, the second says all kinds of things caused it, and they hadn’t happened, we would see warming. > > Neither says it didn’t happen. The slight decrease in the global mean. That first one is a straw man. The second one you claimed before that it was not possible. You are still ignoring reports that in reality there was no cooling. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/613 "2014-03-07T21:48:57Z")
I’m completely baffled why the three of you aren’t eager to define the terms you keep arguing over again and again. Seriously. In any debate, making sure that both sides are using the same definitions for key concept words is key. I would say that it is even more important in a debate about something as empirical as science. Would one of you just start do the others then then either agree or disagree and tweak the definitions? Sheeze. Without this, none of you are going to be able to assess where the specific points of disagreement are. And there has to be someplace where the thoughts diverge. Warming: Cooling: Any other terms you three feel might not be being used the same by all participants? Ready…GO! ---
**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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/614 "2014-03-07T22:38:44Z")
I don’t need to define the terms cooling or warming, it’s just a semantic diversion, the last move of desperation. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/615 "2014-03-07T22:56:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m completely baffled why the three of you aren’t eager to define the terms you keep arguing over again and again. Seriously. In any debate, making sure that both sides are using the same definitions for key concept words is key. I would say that it is even more important in a debate about something as empirical as science. Would one of you just start do the others then then either agree or disagree and tweak the definitions? Sheeze. Without this, none of you are going to be able to assess where the specific points of disagreement are. And there has to be someplace where the thoughts diverge. > > Warming: > > Cooling: > > Any other terms you three feel might not be being used the same by all participants? > > Ready…GO! :rolleyes: Post #601. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/616 "2014-03-07T23:01:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m completely baffled why the three of you aren’t eager to define the terms you keep arguing over again and again. Why is this baffling to you … just asking … ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/617 "2014-03-07T23:09:40Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I don’t need to define the terms cooling or warming, it’s just a semantic diversion, the last move of desperation. Meh, still waiting for any researcher from NASA, GISS and others that agrees that your cherry picks are meaningful, warming is still happening. > **[Fact check: has global warming paused?](https://theconversation.com/fact-check-has-global-warming-paused-12439)** > > “The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ‘30 to 40 years… > [@](#): > > To summarize, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating. > > At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect, known since the 19th century and consistent with the basic laws of greenhouse gas radiative forcing and black body radiation. Still others point out that with the recent updates to the data sets the so called pause may not be there in the surface temperatures. > **[The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-real-difference-between-skeptics-and-deniers/)** > > Anthony Watts has a post which mocks scientists who are trying to explain “the pause.” It oozes ridicule because so many possible explanations have been explored, which he dismisses as … > [@](#): > > As most of you are probably already aware, I’m not convinced there even is a “pause” (read this, and this, and this, and this, and this). You might say I’m genuinely skeptical. Of course it’s possible — but I’m quite confident that there is not sufficient evidence to establish its existence. > > Yet in spite of the fact that the so-called “pause” fails statistical significance, that it is easily explicable as already-known natural variation in addition to (but not instead of) global warming, scientists are so curious about what’s happening to climate, so determined to get at the truth, and so damn skeptical, that they have explored many potential causes of the short-term fluctuations in recent temperature. Not everybody agrees with me that the “pause” isn’t real, not everybody accepts that it’s just already-well-known natural variation on top of the global warming trend, so the scientific community is exploring a wide range of explanations for something that we don’t agree on and a lot of people are genuinely skeptical about. > > That’s what scientists do. When we don’t agree on what’s happening, we try to understand it. If a lot of different possibilities are investigated, well that’s the way it always happens. Eventually, we’ll sort through which arguments are most persuasive and reach at least some measure of agreement. That’s how science works. And it works, bitches. > > But not Anthony Watts! He already made up his mind that CO2 is unimportant or irrelevant, so if he finds anything on which the scientific community can’t reach agreement, anything we’re still exploring and don’t yet fully understand, he can recite only one conclusion: that CO2 is unimportant or irrelevant. Do note that he doesn’t reach that conclusion — he already concluded it beforehand. His total skepticism about that is less than zero. > > And that, dear readers, is the real difference between skeptics and deniers. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/618 "2014-03-07T23:44:39Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Why is this baffling to you … just asking … I’ve been in discussions where the positions of the debaters are not fully understood because not everyone is using the same terms the same way. When that problem comes to light, it’s almost a relief, because so often everyone can understand each other better when they know what the other person meant by X. The baffling part to me is that this is Logic 101, or Debating 101. And I would think that the people that would have the greets appreciation for precision in language would be those in the science field. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/619 "2014-03-08T01:02:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The baffling part to me is that this is Logic 101, or Debating 101. And I would think that the people that would have the greets appreciation for precision in language would be those in the science field. Indeed, you are correct … pretty sure that doesn’t happen here very much. There’s a polarity to the conversation, and not just here on the SDMB. What we see carrying on is just a reflection of society\* in general in this matter. But on the bright side, there is a mess of exciting research going on. - Well, that half of society that has electric power. ---
**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 8, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/620 "2014-03-08T02:15:14Z")
> [@](#): > > As it turns out, the researchers found, snow cover in October has the largest effect on climate in subsequent months. > > That’s because widespread autumn snow cover in Siberia strengthens a semipermanent high-pressure system called, appropriately enough, the Siberian high, which reinforces a climate phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation and steers frigid air southward to midlatitude regions throughout the winter. > > “This is completely plausible,” says Anne Nolin, a climate scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. The correlations between warm summers and cold winters that originally led the researchers to develop their idea don’t prove cause and effect, but analyzing these trends with climate models in future studies could help researchers bolster what Nolin calls “an interesting set of connections.” > > “Northern Eurasia is the largest snow-covered landmass in the world each winter,” she notes. It only makes sense, she argues, that it would have a big influence on the Northern Hemisphere’s climate. Indeed, she adds, previous studies have noted the link between Siberian snow cover and climate in the northern Pacific. > > **The team’s analyses suggest that climate cycles such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation can’t explain the regional cooling trends seen in the Northern Hemisphere during the past couple of decades as well as trends in Siberian snow cover do**. If better accounts of autumn snow-cover variability are incorporated into climate models, scientists could provide more accurate winter-weather forecasts, the researchers contend. [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/01/global-warming-may-trigger-winter-cooling](http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/01/global-warming-may-trigger-winter-cooling) Those who still deny that it is happening, I just don’t understand that mindset. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=32)