# 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:** 5
**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 21, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/81 "2014-02-21T00:10:44Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Have you written a paper or submitted a review comment to enlighten them? > > This is what I think many find so frustrating about the proclamations you tend to make. They are either easily shown to be wrong, or are forays into complete irrelevance where your personal [mis]interpretation is supposed to refute the clearly stated and cited conclusions in reputable publications. > > _Latest example #1_: You said the American Institute of Physics description of relative solar constancy was “completely false”. You were wrong, completely aside from the rhetorical curiosity of why you think you have greater credibility than the AIP. I provided a quote from the IPCC AR5 TS.3.5 which supports the statement and refutes your nonsense – you can find more at Sections TS.3.5 and at _5.2.1.2 Solar Forcing_ and _8.4.1 Solar Irradiance_, with full citations at the end of each relevant chapter. > > _Latest example #2_: You said the Skeptical Science claim of falling solar output in recent years when temperature was increasing was “a display of willful ignorance, perhaps even deception, [that] is appalling to me”. The only thing that was appalling was that you were wrong again. I cited three papers supporting SkepticalScience in my previous post, and provided quotes from them: Lean and Rind (2008), Lockwood (2008), and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). There are many more. > > _Latest example #3_: You post something about 9,000 year variations in solar output as if it had the slightest relevance to what anybody here is talking about. Wrong again, or rather, as someone else already pointed out, completely irrelevant. > > And of course your OP, with cherry-picked time series, and some unstated and unclear point that I presume we are asked to take away from this regarding the earth’s alleged non-warming. > > ## If you think climate science is bullshit, why not just say so and be done with it? Trying to “prove” it hasn’t been working well for you. > > This is from IPCC AR5 WG1 Section 5.2.1. The mean RF of solar variability over the post-industrial era is about 0.05 W/m\*\*2. This is negligible compared to anthropogenic forcings. The cites do show how wrong FX is, BTW he has not admitted how wrong he was by confusing solar spot numbers with solar irridiance. ---
**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 21, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/82 "2014-02-21T00:15:37Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Just because there’s some short-term cooling doesn’t mean that the earth is “obviously not” warming in the long term. Nobody claimed that. Stick to the subject at hand. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Most importantly: _If you’re going to claim that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t exist, you have to come up with a quantitative model that explains **why** it doesn’t exist, since basic physics implies that it **should** exist._ Nobody claimed that. Stick to the playing field. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I.e., we put lots of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we enhance the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect. That ought to make the planet warmer. Assuming no other factors, of course, It’s PHYSICS! However Plass noted in his work on the greenhouse theory, that increased CO2 should warm the cloud tops, leading to more heat being radiated from clouds, along with less precipitation. (A key part of his theory stated that low CO2 leads to glacier and ice cap formation, as it would increase precipitation at the same time the atmosphere cooled.) Warming from CO2 has to increase total water vapor to lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect, and the predicted warming from it. A cold ocean would over ride such a mechanism, as we may be seeing. Of course I also consider the cooling trend for the NH boreal winters to be a factor as well. Unexpected feedbacks from increased and early snowfall causing the cold pole in Siberia to dominate the winters. > [@Kimstu](#): > > If you assert it’s **not** making the planet warmer, well then, **why** isn’t it? The fact that the globe has cooled, rather than warmed, is a factual issue. Explaining it is a much larger one, and we can be sure there are a lot of people working on it right now. Except for the ones who think it isn’t happening. They aren’t doing any research, because why should they? Warming is still going on, just as they predicted. :smack: ---
**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 21, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/83 "2014-02-21T00:27:43Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Again, you still seem to be mixing up the concepts of _“solar irradiation cycles affect global weather patterns to a significant extent”_ and _“solar irradiation cycles are a plausible cause of recent decades’ global warming”_. No, and I never said what you are saying. The sun is the major factor in climate, everything else modifies it’s influence. The cooling of the LIA, as well as the warming since, is due to the sun. Recent temperature changes, both the cold spell from 45 to 78, as well as the warming from 1980 to 2002, are the SUBJECT of intense debate, over the causes, as well as the amount of each influence. That is the really BIG subject of course. Like the decline, which starts in either 1997, 1998, 2000 or 2002, depending on who you believe, whioch data set you use, but there is no doubt since 2002 ALL of them agree, it’s not getting warmer. In fact, the NH winters are obviously trending down. So much that the global mean is effected. These are facts, evident in the OP. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Those two statements are not the same thing. You are stating the obvious. > [@Kimstu](#): > > When scientists say, as in your linked article, _“Hey! We’ve figured out some new details about how solar cycles affect weather patterns!”_, they are not necessarily saying _“OMG this changes everything we know about climate science and solar variability! This might be the real cause of global warming!”_ Assuming that the one implies the other is just wishful thinking on your part. But I am not claiming that, or saying what you said. If you think I did, quote me. Point to exactly what you think I said that is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/84 "2014-02-21T00:32:12Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I was pointing out that the statement in the first paragraph was false, and as you found out, that is indeed the case. […] > > I directly pointed out that the AIP claim was false, because it is. :smack: Oh dear. You’re still missing the point. Let’s look at your statements about [this article](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm) again: > [@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. Now let’s look at that quoted article, the one that you accuse of containing a “false claim”, in more detail: > [@](#): > > The Discovery of Global Warming: Changing Sun, Changing Climate? > > 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._ 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. Let me explain this to you slowly: The AIP article you quoted is a **historical** account of how climate science **changed** over time. (See the word “history” in the URL? That’s a clue.) In the mid-20th century, effects of solar variation on climate cycles were **not yet successfully demonstrated by scientific theory and evidence.** **That** ’s what the quoted AIP article meant by saying that **pre-1976** attempts to demonstrate them “gave results that were ambiguous at best”. **That statement is not false**. Here’s an analogy that might make it easier to understand. If somebody was writing a history of the heliocentric theory of the solar system, they might say _“A few ancient astronomers such as Aristarchus and Aryabhata believed in the motion of the earth, but their arguments in favor of it were not convincingly supported by evidence”._ That statement is not false either. Even though we **now** know that the earth is not stationary, science in the ancient world was not advanced enough to make a convincing case for that fact. Likewise, climate science in the mid-20th century was not yet advanced enough to make a convincing case for a connection between solar variability and climate cycles. That is a **historical** statement about the development of a scientific hypothesis, and has nothing to do with the objective validity of the hypothesis itself. ---
**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 21, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/85 "2014-02-21T00:38:02Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > The “experts” completely predicted this winter wrong. And not only that, when it turned out to be much colder then expected they quickly changed their tune and blamed cold weather on global warming. The climate models, all of them, got the winter cooling trend wrong as well. How ironic. > [@Farin](#): > > Let’s say that 1998 was the new 1938. We are going to get 40 years of a downward trend in temperature. > > What, exactly, would this mean? I have no idea. But you can see how hard it is to get the warring factions to agree on simple things, facts and figures that you might think would be the least contentious items. Instead, you have people not only claiming the warming hasn’t stopped, but has increased. And they aren’t doing comedy, they really believe what they say. ---
**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 21, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/86 "2014-02-21T00:44:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > :smack: Oh dear. You’re still missing the point. No, I got the point, in fact, I made the point. When people said the sun didn’t effect the climate, they were wrong. The ones who still say it, they are wrong now. How much it does the sun influence the world, hotly disputed. Pun intended. But to say “nobody says the sun doesn’t effect the climate” is just not true. I just quoted a “study” that claims the sun has had no influence since 1900! Did you miss it? Not only that, they claim > [@](#): > > Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, **the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions**. Got that? This isn’t some old paper. > **[Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm)** > > Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows. > [@](#): > > **Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change** . See that? That is bullshit. It’s why I challenged his claim about solar influence. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/87 "2014-02-21T00:48:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind in post #76](#): > > Insisting the earth is still warming, when it is obviously not, is something worthy of debate. [QUOTE=FXMastermind in post #81] > [@Kimstu](#): > > Just because there’s some short-term cooling doesn’t mean that the earth is “obviously not” warming in the long term. Nobody claimed that. [/quote] :dubious: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > However Plass noted in his work on the greenhouse theory, that increased CO2 should warm the cloud tops, leading to more heat being radiated from clouds, along with less precipitation. (A key part of his theory stated that low CO2 leads to glacier and ice cap formation, as it would increase precipitation at the same time the atmosphere cooled.) Warming from CO2 has to increase total water vapor to lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect, and the predicted warming from it. A cold ocean would over ride such a mechanism, as we may be seeing. Of course I also consider the cooling trend for the NH boreal winters to be a factor as well. Unexpected feedbacks from increased and early snowfall causing the cold pole in Siberia to dominate the winters. Is this what you consider an alternative scientific hypothesis to the mainstream climate science hypothesis of anthropogenic climate forcing to explain long-term global warming? > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The fact that the globe has cooled, rather than warmed, is a factual issue. No, the fact that some temperature indicators have shown a short-term decrease in recent years is a factual issue. That doesn’t necessarily imply that “the globe has cooled” overall, or that there isn’t still a long-term trend of global warming. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Explaining it is a much larger one, and we can be sure there are a lot of people working on it right now. > > Except for the ones who think it isn’t happening. You seem to have mixed up _“denying that some temperature indicators have shown a short-term decrease in recent years”_ (which AFAIK is not what any climate scientist thinks) with _“disagreeing that a short-term decrease in some temperature indicators contradicts or discredits the hypothesis of long-term global warming”_ (which AFAIK is what pretty much all climate scientists think). ---
**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 21, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/88 "2014-02-21T00:50:44Z")
[Quote=Kimstu] Just because there’s some short-term cooling doesn’t mean that the earth is “obviously not” warming in the long term. [/quote] > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody claimed that. Stick to the subject at hand. … > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The fact that the globe has cooled, rather than warmed, is a factual issue. Explaining it is a much larger one, and we can be sure there are a lot of people working on it right now. > > Except for the ones who think it isn’t happening. They aren’t doing any research, because why should they? Warming is still going on, just as they predicted. > :smack: Beside the clear contradictions, there were already reports that scientists expected that there would be periods of “pauses” and slowdowns" > **[Scientist Explains Earth's Warming Plateau](https://www.npr.org/2009/11/22/120668812/scientist-explains-earths-warming-plateau)** > > Research shows that over the past several years, Earth's temperature has not been heating up. Climate change skeptics claim this as evidence that global warming is overexaggerated. But the man who did the research, climate and ocean scientist Mojib... Bottom line, if you were correct then we could see cooling now to reach the average levels seen in the 60’s, as it is, the heat in the surface of the land keeps up over the last decade and once the oceans are taking into account the warming has not stopped. As the National Research Council from the National Academy of science reports: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/-IuVzcp39rs/maxresdefault.jpg "Is Earth Warming? Climate Change, Lines of Evidence: Chapter 2") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IuVzcp39rs) “The picture that emerges from all these data sets is clear and consistent, the earth is warming.” [https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/89 "2014-02-21T00:58:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > When people said the sun didn’t effect the climate, they were wrong. People who said that back **before 1976** do not qualify as a counterexample to **wolfpup** ’s statement that nobody **nowadays** is claiming that “solar variations don’t exist or have no effect of any kind on climate”. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The ones who still say it, they are wrong now. But nobody **does** still say that “solar variations don’t exist or have no effect of any kind on climate”. Scientists still disagree about **how much** effect **of what kind** solar variations have on climate, but you have not shown any example of current climate science that actually claims they have **no effect whatsoever**. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > But to say “nobody says the sun doesn’t effect the climate” is just not true. In the context of contemporary climate science research, yes, it is true. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not only that, they claim > > > [@](#): > > > > Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions. > > […] > [Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows | ScienceDaily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm) > . See that? That is bullshit. No. That is “scientists still disagreeing about **how much** effect **of what kind** solar variations have 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 21, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/90 "2014-02-21T01:43:29Z")
Lets start over. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I haven’t seen anyone claim that solar variations don’t exist or “have no effect of any kind on climate”. I have, however, posted the scientific data showing that they have no significant effects in the context of post-industrial climate change and the foreseeable future where the effects of anthropogenic GHGs are overwhelmingly dominant. I debunked the evidence, not that it will matter. > [@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. No, the high energy UV varies far more than you think. The effects are unknown, but evidence show they are much larger than just TSI > [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s long been known that because of significant differences in solar irradiance in different parts of the planet, solar variability can influence regional climates. This is what the paper you cite is discussing, and the cite in the context of your argument is, with all respect, irrelevant and appears to reflect a misunderstanding of what the paper is about. We are discussing a possible effect on the Pacific ocean, which is a climate driver, not weather. And in the past, a lot of scientists rejected the very idea the sun controls climate. Then the consensus was it did. Now some scientists are trying to say it has little effect. The issue will not be settled in this topic. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/91 "2014-02-21T02:02:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Hmm. What link do you have for the Solanki et al. 2002 paper? > > ETA: Nemmine, [found it.](http://www2.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j134.pdf) That’s the wrong paper, The graph at Skeptical Science was lifted from [S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova](http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf), Figure 2b. I guess that was published in 2003, my bad. That paper doesn’t back Skeptical Science’s claims … do we have another citation at hand that does? ---
**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 21, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/92 "2014-02-21T02:09:36Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > That’s the wrong paper, The graph at Skeptical Science was lifted from [S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova](http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf), Figure 2b. I guess that was published in 2003, my bad. > > That paper doesn’t back Skeptical Science’s claims … do we have another citation at hand that does? :dubious: > [@](#): > > We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered here. > > We believe that even this fraction is too high. Solar total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to 50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the intercalibration between different instruments carried out by Willson > [1997] is correct. The fact that the irradiance reconstruction of Fligge et al. [1998] [cf.Fligge and Solanki, 2000] agrees far better with the composite of Fröhlich and Lean [1998a] than with Willson [1997], although the reconstruction was made quite independently of the secular trend in these data, supports the former composite. > > Note, however, that the Fligge et al. reconstruction is based on combining proxies of facular brightening with different weights. A different choice of weights may well give somewhat different results. The far better agreement of the Frohlich and Lean composite with the Mg II core-to-wing ratio, the standard proxy of UV irradiance (which also agrees well with the UV-irradiance reconstruction of Fligge and Solanki [2000]), also provides strong support for this composite. In view of this and the arguments presented by Frohlich and Lean [1998b] we conclude that the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970. Besides continuing to support dubious positions, do you think FX was ok to compare charts of the sun spot numbers with sun irradiance? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/93 "2014-02-21T03:19:28Z")
Woot … tornadoes in Alabama and Mississippi … the weather’s back to normal. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/94 "2014-02-21T03:57:13Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Lets start over. Okeydoke. [QUOTE=FXMastermind] And in the past, a lot of scientists rejected the very idea the sun controls climate. Then the consensus was it did. Now some scientists are trying to say it has little effect. [/QUOTE] But AFAIK, no mainstream climate science research supports the hypothesis that solar variation is sufficient to drive all or even most of the observed warming of recent decades. It’s too small. If you have a cite of detailed quantitative “evidence, research and data” that supports the position that solar variability can account for the majority of temperature rise in the last few decades, then by all means let’s discuss it. But I repeat, what you need to support that position is **detailed, quantitative evidence, research and data**. Not just vague assertions along the lines of: > [@FX Mastermind](#): > > […] the high energy UV varies by a huge amount. the effects and chemistry of the upper atmosphere is far from known […] > > There are vast unknowns, just vast […] > > […] there is a strong connection between the sun and climate. […] solar influences climate, and can do so in ways we still don’t know about […] > > The issue of what effect the sun has, and how much, is large and very complicated. […] It’s not just a matter of the energy, it’s chemistry, it’s an unknown […] > > The sun is the major factor in climate, everything else modifies it’s influence […] > > How much it does the sun influence the world, hotly disputed […] > > […] the high energy UV varies far more than you think. The effects are unknown […] None of the actual scientific research you have cited so far contradicts the mainstream climate science position that _solar variability in itself does not plausibly account for the observed amount of recent warming_. If you are trying to contest that position in an evidence-based way, then you need to cite some actual scientific research that supports a contrary position. Not just keep repeating “OMG everything’s so complicated”. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/95 "2014-02-21T09:34:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The variance in temperature is large, and any 10-20 year period could easily show net warming or cooling whether or not the longer-term trend is in the opposite direction. > > Look at the 100 year trend on this chart: [Global temperature trends](http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/climate_change/describing_climatic_trends_rev1.shtml) > > No one would argue that the chart shows anything but a trend of rising temperatures. But notice that temperature hit a peak around 1938, and then began a multi-decadal period of general decline, and temperature didn’t again hit that peak until about 1977. So you could make a true statement in 1976 that the earth’s temperature as measured from a start in 1938 had declined for almost 40 years! It’s just that the statement, while true, would be ‘lying with statistics’ if you used it to ‘prove’ there was no overall warming trend. > > On the other hand, the opposite is also true - people who trot out factoids like “Four of the five hottest years on record occurred since 2000, and therefore it proves warming!” are making exactly the same fallacy. As are the people who are frantically trying to tie individual weather events to global warming to make the case for current damages. > > It also opens the question as to whether even a 100 year trend means anything in this regard. The Vostok ice core temperature reconstructions show that we’re still well below the peak temperature other intra-glacial periods hit before the next ice age kicked in, and the data shows variance much greater than the difference in temperature we’ve measured in the last 100 years, and that variance is over much longer periods. > > If you were looking at [this chart](http://sppiblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/climate-history-ice-core.gif) as an outside observer, what would you conclude about the current temperature? I’d conclude the current interglacial period has been milder than previous ones - in other words, that this is a relatively cool interglacial period. Also, that it appears to have lasted longer than the prior two. Finally, that when an interglacial period ends, temperatures drop quickly and dramatically. Just going by the chart, it looks like we ought to be dumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible, just to save our Canandian friends from the glaciers. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/96 "2014-02-21T15:38:03Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’d conclude the current interglacial period has been milder than previous ones - in other words, that this is a relatively cool interglacial period. Also, that it appears to have lasted longer than the prior two. Finally, that when an interglacial period ends, temperatures drop quickly and dramatically. > > Just going by the chart, it looks like we ought to be dumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as possible, just to save our Canandian friends from the glaciers. 100 million years ago, average global temperatures were 15ºC to 20ºC higher than today. It’s fair to say we’re uncommonly cold now. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/97 "2014-02-21T17:11:19Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > 100 million years ago, average global temperatures were 15ºC to 20ºC higher than today. It’s fair to say we’re uncommonly cold now. That’s an interesting definition of “uncommonly.” ---
**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 21, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/98 "2014-02-21T18:12:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But AFAIK, no mainstream climate science research supports the hypothesis that solar variation is sufficient to drive all or even most of the observed warming of recent decades. It’s too small. Once more, I never said that. What I pointed out was that the lack of solar energy could be driving the cooling. The CO2 effect isn’t nearly strong enough at present to control the world. This is obvious, be it solar, wind, oceans, air pollution, or unexpected feedbacks, the “climate”, which is usually the global mean, which is absurd of course, is not being run by CO2. It’s being influenced, which is physics. Ozone, methane, deforestation, CO2 and CfCs, albedo changes, irrigation, dams, even the inbalance of nitrogen from fertilizer run off, volcanoes, or laying waste to tropical forests, it’s all influences. The official story has been that CO2 dominates everything else. Everything. Obviously, at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm. This does NOT MEAN anything else. it does not mean we should keep burning fuel and forests like crazy people, trashing the planet, blanketing the arctic with black soot, filling the stratosphere over the poles with water vapor and fuel additives, and on and on and on. There’s a big part of the communication problem, any “data” that seems to challenge the idea that we have to stop, like now, all fossil fuels, is fought against. The data is the enemy. I understand that, but it’s not the question we are debating. (I agree with reducing fuel use, as well as many other very green things, but that isn’t the issue) The very idea, that obviously “other factors” right now have actually reversed the warming trend, seems horrific to some people. Rather than experiencing joy, relief, more time to fix the big problem, more time to build and use solar and wind, and other options, rather than any goodness, it’s viewed as some sort of attack, some challenge to the very idea of human caused climate change. ---
**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 21, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/99 "2014-02-21T19:33:37Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once more, I never said that. What I pointed out was that the lack of solar energy could be driving the cooling. The CO2 effect isn’t nearly strong enough at present to control the world. > > This is obvious, be it solar, wind, oceans, air pollution, or unexpected feedbacks, the “climate”, which is usually the global mean, which is absurd of course, is not being run by CO2. It’s being influenced, which is physics. Ozone, methane, deforestation, CO2 and CfCs, albedo changes, irrigation, dams, even the inbalance of nitrogen from fertilizer run off, volcanoes, or laying waste to tropical forests, it’s all influences. The official story has been that CO2 dominates everything else. Everything. > > Obviously, at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm. Wrong again. > **[Global Warming](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php)** > > Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is necessary to understand what global warming is, how scientists know it's happening, and how they... > [@](#): > > The enhanced greenhouse effect > > What has scientists concerned now is that over the past 250 years, humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate, mostly by burning fossil fuels, but also from cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent. > > The atmosphere today contains more greenhouse gas molecules, so more of the infrared energy emitted by the surface ends up being absorbed by the atmosphere. Since some of the extra energy from a warmer atmosphere radiates back down to the surface, Earth’s surface temperature rises. By increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, we are making Earth’s atmosphere a more efficient greenhouse. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The very idea, that obviously “other factors” right now have actually reversed the warming trend, seems horrific to some people. Rather than experiencing joy, relief, more time to fix the big problem, more time to build and use solar and wind, and other options, rather than any goodness, it’s viewed as some sort of attack, some challenge to the very idea of human caused climate change. Only that the “cool down” of the70’s tell us that claiming that we have more time or that warming was reversed is really reckless. And once again, scientists acknowledged that variations where expected, more warming is coming. And the sooner we do control emissions the less damage will be in store. ---
**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 21, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/100 "2014-02-21T19:46:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And the sooner we do control emissions the less damage will be in store. We don’t actually know that. It’s that sort of sweeping pronouncement, with surety, that rankles the scientific and the logical mind. You actually can’t know that, it’s not scientific, it’s not how science works. If the “cooldown” , which was actually a 30 year phase, was caused by air pollution, if that is actually true, then the claim is pretty much that man was controlling the climate since 1945. Then, and this is actually a story people tell, the clean air act and reduced pollution, along with rising emissions and drastic deforestation, we caused it to warm up. But now, the story becomes very complicated, with many different stories all being told at once. The stories all conflict in some way. Which is evident in this topic already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=6)