# Has the world actually been cooling since 2002?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728>\
**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:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/101 "2014-02-21T20:07:47Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> 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.

You might as well [debate gravity](http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/republican-meteorologist-entrepreneur-debating-cause-of-climate-change-is-moral-and-scientific-equivalent-of-debating-gravity/) FX.

NASA ends the Earth Observatory lesson with this:

> [@](#):
>
> Ultimately, global warming will impact life on Earth in many ways, but the extent of the change is largely up to us. Scientists have shown that human emissions of greenhouse gases are pushing global temperatures up, and many aspects of climate are responding to the warming in the way that scientists predicted they would. This offers hope. Since people are causing global warming, people can mitigate global warming, if they act in time. Greenhouse gases are long-lived, so the planet will continue to warm and changes will continue to happen far into the future, but the degree to which global warming changes life on Earth depends on our decisions now.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> 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.

The stories do not contradict that more warming is coming, they only explain the “pause”

The point here is that those natural cycles that explain the current “pause” will come back as they did after the 70’s (there is a reason why they are called cycles) and the warming they bring will be added to the warming caused by human emissions that are accumulating in the atmosphere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/102 "2014-02-21T20:27:48Z")

</div>

BTW, when you claim that one should not do such a “sweeping pronouncement, with surety, that rankles the scientific and the logical mind”, we have to remember that you offered pronouncements that confused the number of sun spots with the total solar irridance. Continue to pronounce that cherry picks are more effective than long trends and that we should ignore the experts at NASA GISS and others. And then you came back (ignoring the failed pronouncements) by claiming that “Obviously, at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm.”

A wrong statement on top of being a sweeping pronouncement. As NASA and many other scientific groups and organizations report, the warming is going to the oceans [last time I checked, they are also part of the world], and the cycles will make a good portion of that heat to eventually show up in the surface temperatures.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/103 "2014-02-21T20:59:11Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> The official story has been that CO2 dominates everything else. Everything.

Cite? This sounds like a really exaggerated and sloppy way of characterizing mainstream climate science.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Obviously, at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm.

Again, I think your problem here is not so much with what you probably **mean** to say as with the misleadingly loose way you’re expressing it. It would be more accurate to say that _“at present, the apparent long-term warming trend that is apparently being primarily driven by anthropogenic greenhouse-gase emissions is not preventing the occurrence of a short-term decrease in some temperature indicators”_.

In other words, CO2 **can** still be causing the world to warm even if that ongoing warming is temporarily masked (in some of its manifestations, at least) by other effects.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> The very idea, that obviously “other factors” right now have actually reversed the warming trend, seems horrific to some people.

Cite? Once again, sloppy fulmination against the vaguely characterized reactions of unidentified “some people” is not really relevant to a debate on science issues.

You’re the one who started this thread with a **specific, objective, science-based question** about whether the world has “actually been cooling” in recent years. And when confronted with specific, science-based arguments that suggest it actually has not—at least, not in the sense of actually contradicting or counteracting a long-term warming trend—you sluff off into unfocused lamentations about how “some people” just inexplicably hate the idea. Point: missed.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> 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.

You are possibly mixing up the concepts of _reversing_ warming and _masking_ warming.

While I agree that it would indeed be a terrific thing if our climate systems had somehow really pressed the “pause” button on a long-term warming trend and produced a genuine delay in the timescale of climate change, that is not necessarily what a short-term cooling trend implies. Temperature fluctuations due to natural variability don’t automatically mean that the overall trajectory of global warming has slowed.

If indeed it **has** slowed, then yay great super wow and talk about glorious dumb luck. But the mere existence of a short-term cooling trend, **if** it’s due to natural climate variability, doesn’t necessarily indicate that global warming overall has slowed.  
**Here’s a simplistic analogy for purposes of illustration:** Suppose I decided it would be nice to breed a few rabbits in my backyard, and the project got out of hand until I’m up to my hiney in baby rabbits and more of them just keep coming. Now suppose that suddenly for a short while I notice that the number of rabbits has not been increasing and has even dropped a bit. Whew, what a relief, right? Well, maybe not.

**If** the rabbits’ reproductive rate has indeed permanently or even temporarily dropped, for whatever mysterious reason, that’s wonderful news and gives me at least a bit of breathing space to cope with my rabbit problem.

But **if** , on the other hand, the apparent decline in rabbits is due simply to the fact that a bunch of them are managing to get through a hole in the fence to live in my neighbor’s backyard instead, and it’s only a matter of time before my neighbor discovers them and furiously dumps them and all their subsequent progeny back into my own backyard— then the temporary “rabbit cooling” wasn’t really such a lucky break for me as I thought it was.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/104 "2014-02-21T21:39:14Z")

</div>

Worst winter in Toronto we absolutely had in last 15 years.

Dont care what the global warming freaks are telling us, this doesnt help their cause

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/105 "2014-02-21T21:48:11Z")

</div>

> [@Esco](#):
>
> Worst winter in Toronto we absolutely had in last 15 years.
> 
> Dont care what the global warming freaks are telling us, this doesnt help their cause

It really does not help when scientists are called freaks, the only result is that even in Canada the ones resorting to that are called deniers, and not just by the scientists.

> **[Is global warming a myth?](https://www.thestar.com/news/world/is-global-warming-a-myth/article_dec7c289-b8d9-5fba-85df-374f4b001624.html)**
>
> A single winter cold air outbreak doesn’t negate the reality of global warming, climatologist says, as cold snap provides fodder for deniers.

> [@](#):
>
> A single winter cold air outbreak doesn’t negate the reality of global warming, he says.
> 
> “If you take a step back and look at how extreme temperatures are actually changing over time, you see that in North America over the past decade, we have broken all-time records for warmth at twice the rate as records for cold,” Mann points out.
> 
> A month ago, “we reported the warmest conditions the globe has ever seen in November, and Australia is in the midst of a record heat wave to finish out what we have now learned was the warmest year on record for the entire continent of Australia.”
> 
> The increased tendency in some regions for particularly heavy snowfall events is not evidence against climate change and global warming, “but evidence in support of it, a consequence of the increased moisture content of warmer air.”
> 
> This cold snap, he acknowledges, has provided fodder for climate change deniers to distract people with misinformation.

> [@](#):
>
> Meanwhile, as parts of North America are being walloped by snow, there is the other story, says Francis.
> 
> Alaska is warm, the U.S. West Coast is experiencing a prolonged drought. England is being pummelled by rainstorms, while Scandinavia is extremely warm.
> 
> “All these extreme events, at the same time, are related to the way the jet stream is shaped right now with big north and south swings,” she says.
> 
> To all the climate change skeptics out there, she says: “Talk to those in Alaska or Scandinavia.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/106 "2014-02-21T22:22:41Z")

</div>

> [@Esco](#):
>
> Worst winter in Toronto we absolutely had in last 15 years.
> 
> Dont care what the global warming freaks are telling us, this doesnt help their cause

If you think that an unusually cold winter somehow discredits the hypothesis of a long-term anthropogenic global warming trend, you really don’t understand climate science at all.

For a more informed perspective on what climate scientists are **actually** telling you about climate trends, take a look at, for example, these data (from [Government of Canada Historical Climate Data](http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?StationID=5097&timeframe=2&cmdB1=Go&cmdB2=Go&Year=2013&Month=2&cmdB2=Go#)) for February average minimum temperature (degrees C) in Toronto over the past nearly 50 years:

**1965-1974** : -10.5 -9.4 -14.2 -12.2 -9.3 -11.6 -8.9 -13.1 -13.0 -12.7  
**1975-1984** : -7.3 -7.3 -9.8 -14.5 -15.1 -12.3 -6.2 -11.9 -6.9 -5.5  
**1985-1994** : -9.9 -9.4 -10.8 -11.7 -10.6 -8.0 -6.7 -7.8 -13.4 -13.0  
**1995-2004** : -11.8 -9.5 -7.7 -4.0 -5.6 -7.4 -6.5 -5.5 -11.5 -8.0  
**2005-2013** : -8.2 -7.2 -12.2 -9.3 -8.2 -6.7 -9.8 -3.8 -8.1

You can see that _on average_, February in Toronto has been getting noticeably warmer over the past half-century. The fact that you’re currently experiencing winter weather that is unusually cold for the past couple of decades (but would have been unremarkable in some of the decades before that) doesn’t mean that the general trend isn’t real.

[Obligatory link to XKCD cartoon about “brutally cold” subzero weather in St. Louis](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold).  
_Climate Change Denial. “Because what used to be normal now feels too cold.”_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/107 "2014-02-21T22:25:57Z")

</div>

> [@andros](#):
>
> That’s an interesting definition of “uncommonly.”

Sure, for about 60% (common) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were 15ºC to 20ºC warmer that today … about 30% (uncommon) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were about as they are today … and about 10% (rarely) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were much much hotter, like over 100ºC hotter.

… roughly speaking …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/108 "2014-02-21T22:35:22Z")

</div>

> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> Sure, for about 60% (common) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were 15ºC to 20ºC warmer that today … about 30% (uncommon) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were about as they are today … and about 10% (rarely) of the Earth’s history, temperatures were much much hotter, like over 100ºC hotter.

How is that relevant, though? AFAIK, nobody at all is claiming that current climate trends are in any way extreme _compared to the entire course of the planet’s history_.

What we as modern humans need to be concerned about is how current trends compare with previous trends _during the time that the planetary environment has supported modern humans_. Especially for the part of that period that has supported what we loosely call “civilization”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/109 "2014-02-21T22:59:39Z")

</div>

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> If you think that an unusually cold winter somehow discredits the hypothesis of a long-term anthropogenic global warming trend, you really don’t understand climate science at all.
> 
> For a more informed perspective on what climate scientists are **actually** telling you about climate trends, take a look at, for example, these data (from [Government of Canada Historical Climate Data](http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?StationID=5097&timeframe=2&cmdB1=Go&cmdB2=Go&Year=2013&Month=2&cmdB2=Go#)) for February average minimum temperature (degrees C) in Toronto over the past nearly 50 years:
> 
> **1965-1974** : -10.5 -9.4 -14.2 -12.2 -9.3 -11.6 -8.9 -13.1 -13.0 -12.7  
> **1975-1984** : -7.3 -7.3 -9.8 -14.5 -15.1 -12.3 -6.2 -11.9 -6.9 -5.5  
> **1985-1994** : -9.9 -9.4 -10.8 -11.7 -10.6 -8.0 -6.7 -7.8 -13.4 -13.0  
> **1995-2004** : -11.8 -9.5 -7.7 -4.0 -5.6 -7.4 -6.5 -5.5 -11.5 -8.0  
> **2005-2013** : -8.2 -7.2 -12.2 -9.3 -8.2 -6.7 -9.8 -3.8 -8.1
> 
> You can see that _on average_, February in Toronto has been getting noticeably warmer over the past half-century. The fact that you’re currently experiencing winter weather that is unusually cold for the past couple of decades (but would have been unremarkable in some of the decades before that) doesn’t mean that the general trend isn’t real.
> 
> [Obligatory link to XKCD cartoon about “brutally cold” subzero weather in St. Louis](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold).  
> _Climate Change Denial. “Because what used to be normal now feels too cold.”_

What’s humorous to me is that people think that even if we dive into a temperature trend that’s downward for 40 years and gives us coldnesses that are inline with the 40 years of cooling that hapened from the 30s to the 70s, it isn’t like that means the climate isn’t warmer on average than it was in 1900. Even if humanity didn’t exist, the climate would be changing. That’s it’s natural operating pattern. There are some who doubt that the various influences ever reach a “balance point” where it would be stable if nothing changed.

What we have done is cause some effect to that system. By IPCC estimates between 30 and 50% of the current era change is likely caused by human activity (including an extended activity map, e.g. CO2 warms, causing methane to be released, methane warms, etc). We do have some issues in how the entire system interacts together, but it’s not like the underlying fact isn’t true. For instance, if we were to enter 40 years of a cooling on average world, right now we don’t have a tested hypothesis of why or how that would happen. We have a couple of them that have been advanced, but we are still in discovery mode for why the average change has flattened out.

But, as \*\*Gigo \*\*will come in and tell me ( 😃 ) that doesn’t mean that pausing for some length of time at +1C of change or even sliding back down that scale to -1C doesn’t mean that we aren’t having an effect. But, we should have as little effect as possible. I’m not saying regulating everyone into huts or something, but I would love to both live my current life AND have nuclear power replaces 100% of the coal, natural gas, and ICE power generation capacity we currently have. (Hopefully not nuclear in every vehicles. I love the little Farins too much to do that to them.)

I do agree with you, **FX** , on one aspect: that the catastrophe theories of how the next 100 years will play out are educated guesses based on extrapolations of extrapolations. But we should be cleaning up our mess, regardless. And that cleanup cost should be built into the cost of getting that electricity in the first place. By using the market’s economies of scale and actively processing the output to (hopefully) inert materials we will make this economical and make it so that we barely feel the pinch.

All of this hemming and hawing about whether the trend in the last 15 years is flat, declining, or positive is pointless. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that every single climate scientist in the world read your posts in this thread and went HE’S RIGHT! What now, outside of your cushy new job counting stacks of cash? Should we just continue pumping things into the air, ground, and water with no regard? Shouldn’t we require that if you are going to stuff mercury into felt caps to make them soft that the mercury should not be flushed into any kind of water source? Why would we **not** want to use our preternatural disposition for intelligence to stop abusing what we have and instead respect it?

What are the ramifications of your argument, **FX**? Where does it take us? What would be your ideal world in regard to climate science and what it’s effect on policy would be?  
ETA: Sorry, Kimstu. I abused your statement for my own purposes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/110 "2014-02-21T23:09:43Z")

</div>

> [@Farin](#):
>
> I do agree with you, **FX** , on one aspect: that the catastrophe theories of how the next 100 years will play out are educated guesses based on extrapolations of extrapolations.

So do I. And in fact, **AFAICT there is no mainstream climate science researcher who would disagree with it.**

But just because **some** aspects of understanding and predicting climate change are admittedly very uncertain doesn’t mean that nobody understands anything at all and one guess is as good as another.

> [@Farin](#):
>
> ETA: Sorry, Kimstu. I abused your statement for my own purposes.

No problem, it’ll boost my citation index count. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/111 "2014-02-21T23:58:12Z")

</div>

> [@Farin](#):
>
> What are the ramifications of your argument, **FX**? Where does it take us? What would be your ideal world in regard to climate science and what it’s effect on policy would be?

To be honest, I don’t know. When I first noticed some of these things discussed in the OP, it was almost exactly four years ago, and at the time I was more like GIGO than anybody else here, in regards to my views of climate change. Except I considered anyone arguing against catastrophic consequences of CO2 levels increasing, either a fool or some sort of shill or even worse, some kind of Republican. So I just didn’t even read global warming topics, much less argue about it.

It’s why you don’t see any threads or posts from me about climate at that time. Anywhere online. Trapped by snow and cold, and because of the climategate emails, I went digging into the data, and I was shocked when I looked at the data, and discovered the winters, for some areas, actually showed a cooling trend.

Meanwhile, I can link you directly to another forum, to a topic, where I actually posted in defense of global warming at this time, where I said, and I can prove this of course, I said pretty much “heavy snowfall is a prediction of global warming, more moisture in the warm air meeting the cold front will result in more snowfall, but it doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening”. This was during possibly the worst blizzard to ever hit the DC area.

Even in the midst of these back to back completely over the top blizzards, and the unusual cold that followed, I was unsure what it meant. I knew that the data showed something that didn’t fit with the official story. But then what?

It seemed to place me firmly in the “denier” camp, if I even mentioned it. People turned like rabid dogs, if they suspected you were even hinting that it wasn’t warming, that we were not in grave danger, and right soon.

And that is about all I can type at the moment. I apologize if I can’t answer the decent and reasonable questions at the moment. Circumstances beyond my control, and a string of most unfortunate events.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/112 "2014-02-22T00:40:21Z")

</div>

> [@Farin](#):
>
> What we have done is cause some effect to that system. …
> 
> What are the ramifications of your argument, **FX**? Where does it take us? What would be your ideal world in regard to climate science and what it’s effect on policy would be?

OK trying once more. I do not know. I could go on and on but at this point it would all be musings, thoughts and theorizing, none of which I am qualified to actually comment on. I simply do not know yet.

> [@Farin](#):
>
> What would be your ideal world in regard to climate science and what it’s effect on policy would be?

The only thing I can say with confidence on this, is that the data, the measurements and the raw data and the analysis and the code and the methods of every last bit of climate science, weather records and all satellite readings should be open to everyone. And we should use computers and the internet to connect everybody to everything, so that nothing can be hidden, destroyed, changed with out a trail of what and why. And it should be asy to find, use and share. For example

> [@Esco](#):
>
> Worst winter in Toronto we absolutely had in last 15 years.
> 
> Dont care what the global warming freaks are telling us, this doesnt help their cause

Thye records for Toronot, all of them should be a click away, and the data should be displayed so there is simply no doubt about it. Click. Is it really that bad in Toronto? Is it a trend? No questions, no “we can’t show you” involved. This would stop so much of the pernicious bullshit involving climate. Instead we get

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> If you think that an unusually cold winter somehow discredits the hypothesis of a long-term anthropogenic global warming trend, you really don’t understand climate science at all.

Oh yeah? Well if it’s so important to understand, make the damn data available. People can understand temperatures, snowfall and sunshine. It’s not an esoteric science. Instead we get

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> php/1321:\_Cold"]Obligatory link to XKCD cartoon about “brutally cold” subzero weather in St. Louis.
> 
> _Climate Change Denial. “Because what used to be normal now feels too cold.”_

which I debunked in a matter of seconds when I first saw it. And I fucking love xkcd, but he is wrong. And I can prove it of course.

There is so much that is just wrong in the way climate and weather is used as weapons in some ill defined war.

Seriously.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/113 "2014-02-22T00:48:54Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Oh yeah? Well if it’s so important to understand, make the damn data available. People can understand temperatures, snowfall and sunshine. It’s not an esoteric science.

\*\*Kimstu \*\*linked to a data set than can be reviewed back to 1937.

So, another “sweeping pronouncement” that was wrong.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Instead we get which I debunked in a matter of seconds when I first saw it. And I fucking love xkcd, but he is wrong. And I can prove it of course.

No, you failed last time as you used only cherry picks omitting the big picture that the maker of xkcd pointed at, so here we have another sweeping pronouncement from you that is wrong.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> There is so much that is just wrong in the way climate and weather is used as weapons in some ill defined war.
> 
> Seriously.

As pointed in this thread, you where wrong by comparing the number of sun spots with the total solar irridance. To continue to do cherry picks, to dismiss the experts at NASA, GISS and others. And then claiming that “at present, CO2 isn’t causing the world to warm.”

Not only seriously wrong, but certifiably wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/114 "2014-02-22T01:07:33Z")

</div>

Honestly, **FXMastermind** , that was a truly breathtaking display of lack of reading comprehension on your part.

1. **Esco** posts a random musing about this year’s winter in Toronto;

2. I respond pointing out the greater significance of long-term temperature **trends** , and in the process _quoting winter temperature data for Toronto over the past 50 years, with a cite and link to the source of the data;_

3. and _you respond with a post complaining that I should “make the data available”._

Making the data available is exactly what I did. It’s just that you seem to have completely missed it in reading my post.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> And I fucking love xkcd, but he is wrong. And I can prove it of course.

Very interesting. Let’s see your proof, then.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> There is so much that is just wrong in the way climate and weather is used as weapons in some ill defined war.

The only one who’s really misusing data and arguments about climate and weather in an “ill defined war” around here is you. Every time somebody shows how you got something wrong or misinterpreted or misread a source, you retreat into general tut-tutting about how **other** people should be arguing more rigorously. First take the plank out of your own eye, pal.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/115 "2014-02-22T01:09:49Z")

</div>

Well I’m still going so one last quick response.  
“The official story has been that CO2 dominates everything else. Everything.”

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Cite? This sounds like a really exaggerated and sloppy way of characterizing mainstream climate science.

It is, and you don’t need a cite, you can find that everywhere. Even in this topic.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Again, I think your problem here is not so much with what you probably **mean** to say as with the misleadingly loose way you’re expressing it. It would be more accurate to say that _“at present, the apparent long-term warming trend that is apparently being primarily driven by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions is not preventing the occurrence of a short-term decrease in some temperature indicators”_.

Probably, but that isn’t what I am saying, not at all. After four years of research, and a lot of effort and time, I know a little bit about the greenhouse gas theory, and the chemistry of the atmosphere. There are some big unknowns, especially in regards to the CO2 forcing, and the feedback effects. And the oceans. It’s not simple, it can’t even be made simple.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> **Here’s a simplistic analogy for purposes of illustration:**

No, it can’t be made simple, and while I understand your intent, that isn’t even close to what we are discussing.  
If it involved the entire continent of Australia, then it might work.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Suppose I decided it would be nice to breed a few rabbits in my backyard, and the project got out of hand …snip…
> 
> and it’s only a matter of time before my neighbor discovers them and furiously dumps them and all their subsequent progeny back into my own backyard— then the temporary “rabbit cooling” wasn’t really such a lucky break for me as I thought it was.

It’s tempting to use simplistic examples, but it doesn’t work. I found myself wanting to walk down that garden path, but no.

The only thing that would be good about that example, might be this, if while the food supply was disappearing at an increased pace, you were not getting any more rabbits. You keep having to add more food, but you see fewer rabbits as time goes by.

Where is the food going? Where are the rabbits going? How can we measure the energy in and out, and see more energy being “kept” by the planet, but not record where it is being kept? Now that is a good question.

Because it is one we can actually answer. It is a hypothetical answer, but a real one, from real science and research, and while it uses models, sometimes models are useful.

And if I can get one more post done, I will explain.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/116 "2014-02-22T01:11:54Z")

</div>

OK rather than the example, I must respond.

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Making the data available is exactly what I did. It’s just that you seem to have completely missed it in reading my post.

No, I actually know how much trouble you went to, when it should be a few clicks and a link to a data source instead.

I fully support what you did.

I want everyone to be able to do it. Easily.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/117 "2014-02-22T01:22:22Z")

</div>

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> Honestly, **FXMastermind** , that was a truly breathtaking display of lack of reading comprehension on your part.

I’m sure it seems that way, and I apologize. I have to struggle to type at the moment, and that was not my intent at all. That site you used is just terrible for showing trends.

Here is what I am talking about, and an example of what I wish for, in regards to all the data.

> **[1321: Cold - explain xkcd](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold)**
>
> Explain xkcd is a wiki dedicated to explaining the webcomic xkcd. Go figure.

He used St Louis temperature, so look at the trends  
[January](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/23/00/tmp/1/01/1895-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000)  
[February](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/23/00/tmp/1/02/1895-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000)  
[December](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/23/00/tmp/1/12/1895-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000)

[Winter](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/23/00/tmp/3/02/1895-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&filter=true)

I can’t link you to selected trends, but you can do that yourself.

It’s why I know xkcd is wrong. The data, it’s always the data.

See for yourself.

Then show me Toronto in the same way.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/118 "2014-02-22T01:28:38Z")

</div>

[Now look at St Louis on the GISS map](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=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)

[19 year trend](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=1995&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)

[21 year trend](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=1992&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)

[25 year trend](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=1988&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)

What they always show you, to say it’s warming, is something like this

[from 1970-present](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=1970&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)

It’s deceptive, and it’s just one more reason I am so skeptical. Even xkcd was fooled.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 22, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/119 "2014-02-22T01:33:02Z")

</div>

Well that was a sidetrack. One last look at St Louis, [the 40 years before 1970](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=1930&year2=1970&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob)  
That’s what they leave out, it’s how to fool people. You start a trend at the coldest part of a time period, and ignore the reality of the last 25 years.

How do you think somebody will feel when they are ridiculed and mocked for saying the winter is cold, and “science” tells them they don’t know shit about science? Then they find out what I just easily showed you? And realize the winters are getting colder, and the data shows it?

I doubt any of this will get through, but hey, it’s what the actual data shows.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728/120 "2014-02-22T01:35:21Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> No, I actually know how much trouble you went to, when it should be a few clicks and a link to a data source instead.
> 
> I fully support what you did.
> 
> I want everyone to be able to do it. Easily.

Well, it wasn’t that hard. I read **Esco** ’s comment about winter in Toronto, I spent about 5 minutes googling around for “historical winter temperatures Toronto” and another 5 minutes reading about the data at the Government of Canada Historical Climate Data site I linked to, and then I took about 4 minutes cutting and pasting 49 temperature records for historical February average minimum temperatures.

Yeah, it would be somewhat more convenient to have a single online Universal Global Historical Climate Records database where you could just type in “winter temperature trends Toronto 1965-present” and it would spit the desired information right out. But working with more cumbersome data sources is not that big a deal, IMHO.

The fact is that most online science resources are not designed for the pursuit of any kind of “citizen science” in the first place. I hope that will change over time, but in the meantime I don’t think nonspecialists who are interested in a particular scientific subject should be scared away by the prospect of having to work a little harder to understand and present the available information.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=5)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-world-actually-been-cooling-since-2002/681728.md?page=7)