# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 184
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3661 "2015-01-14T03:22:29Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I believe **FX** is pointing out that the winter NH trend between 1980 and present is neutral or slight warming in most studies , and 1990 to present is neutral or colder in most studies, and that it’s highly asymmetrical by region. Well it’s a little more complicated than that, but this sort of “presentation”, by which I mean this Pit topic, and the aborted other efforts in GD, does not lend itself to clarity, nor can we use images with ease here, making it problematic to actually do Science! That being said … The fact that the winter trend for much of the US has become cooling, **doesn’t mean much for a global warming argument**. (We will see this shortly). So even if US winters were showing a warming trend, **that wouldn’t matter in the great global warming debate**. So does the US data even matter in any case? It seems to depend on what somebody thinks the data is showing us. If it seems to go against global warming, it doesn’t matter. But if it seems to show warming, then it’s evidence. > [@XT](#): > > According to [this](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/winters-are-warming-all-across-the-us-15590), winter temps are warming in the US in all but one state. I already debunked their nonsense “study” several times, but to make it easy to quote I will remove most of it from the tags while reposting it from elsewhere > [@Is global warming falsifiable?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/722): > > tl;dr I used a climatecentral propaganda piece and GISS data to show how difficult it is to falsify any claims made by global warmers. In this case “winter are warming fastest in the US” —begin quote– The multiple GISS maps are an obvious counter to the false claims climatecentral makes about THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, which is obvious from their “paper” on the matter. They claim winters are warming faster than any other season. The GISS data shows this is false. [The last 25 years for winter](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), can be seen in this map. [The last 25 years for summer](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) can be seen in this map Nobody said anything about Louisiana, and the map shows the entire world. I’m using it to check climatecentral, and it clearly shows how they try to twist the facts, and present “winters are warming faster than any other season in the US”. Which is false. Even the 30 year trend shows this clearly. (and also shows boreal winter not warming as much as boreal summer, globally) [30 year winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [30 year summer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) I’m not making a claim, I am debunking climatecentral, who claims winters are warming even faster, for the US. There “paper” is both false, as well as misleading. The GISS maps clearly show this. If you know of a blog that has discussed this, especially in regards to the climatecentral paper, please link to it, or if you fear giving them traffic, send it by PM. I know of no blogs discussing either the climatecentral nonsense, or the boreal winter trends. The lack of any real claims makes it hard to even know what would falsify anything they claim. ------------- end quoted material from another thread------------- Here’s another long post about the same climatecentral paper (clipped to avoid clutter, it’s a long post full of science and shit like that) > [@Is global warming falsifiable?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-global-warming-falsifiable/687786/716): > > This was debunked before, and it’s actually a good example of the blindness and belief that the alarmists lives in. The climatecentral “study” isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper, but that doesn’t stop anyone from using it over and over, while trying to persuade everyone that even though they are experiencing the coldest winter ever, winters are warming. It is used to persuade that even with winters obviously getting much much worse, they are in fact warming faster than any other season. This is pure bullshit, and it’s easy to debunk bullshit. Because the data shows how wrong their bullshit actually is. Since I already showed three times the problem with their claim, would it matter to do so once again? Of course not. > [@XT](#): > > And [this](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=1106&year1=2014&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob) seems to be showing a general warming of the NH in the winter between 1951 and 2014. Both your links to GISS maps show nothing about the trends, but you get points for at least trying. > [@XT](#): > > I’m not sure where you are getting your assertion that winters are colder from, Seriously? You haven’t read or followed the data, that I have posted at least as dozen times now? You seriously don’t know at this point? The multitude of science reports and media stories about this? Over a dozen scientific papers? I just don’t get this. Do you think I just made this up? IT IS WHAT THE DATA SHOWS. > [@XT](#): > > but leaving aside perhaps an odd year where that’s true the trend seems pretty clear that it is getting warmer in the winter when you average across the whole of either the NH or the globe (as opposed to looking at and focusing on a specific state or region) No, and that’s what makes it so interesting. If it was the occasional winter, or even limited to a small area, some winter cooling trend would mean little, except perhaps that we are observing local climate change somewhere. It would be quicker to list where winter warming is NOT observed, than to list all regions effected by more severe winters. By that, we mean colder winters, more snow, early cold, late cold, and long lasting extreme cold periods, during winter. It’s an actual thing, nobody has made it up It’s that it is so extreme, so much cooling that it shows up clearly in the global data, including the annual mean, that makes it important. It actually means something. That’s why there are a hundred papers or more about it now. Science can’t just ignore it. > [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > According to this [site](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/00/tavg/3/02/1950-2014?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1896&lasttrendyear=2014), average winter temperature (December - February) in the lower 48 has gone up by a degree Celsius since 1950. Once again, even if I show you that the last two decades for most of the US is trending colder, it won’t matter. It gets handwaved away as “just local cooling, not global”. Which is why I focus on the NH trends, which actually do effect the global mean. It’s very easy to show, but experience has taught me, it won’t matter to those who already think they know everything. But since I know some people are reading who have open minds, here we go once more. The short version: NH winters (boreal winter) are trending colder, in large areas. This is unexpected. It is not predicted by theory or models (aside from recent forecast models, like the sCast used by Cohen) The trends Cohen et al. first noted were from 1988-2006, or 1989-2007, for the early papers. The 2012 and 2013 and 2014 papers use more recent data, but none of them include the 2014 winter yet. I noticed the trends in 2010, using 1990-2010, But subsequent years did little to change them, the NH winters are still trending colder. Anyone can see this using the available tools, like the NCDC global data, GISS or the ClimateReanalyzer tools. As the data shows, the arctic regions are still warming, and the tropics show little trend for boreal winters. But the winter months, D-J-F all show trends so strong they change the annual mean figures. You can see this on the GISS maps [Feb starts in 1995](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [Jan starts in 2001](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=2001&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), as does [December](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=2001&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), (but that does not include 2014 data yet) Remember that the SH land and ocean trend is still warming, so those winter months are so much COLDER they pull the entire monthly global data down, making the trend negative. This is nothing short of a “what the fuck” sort of realization, for the climate scientist. Because CO2 levels rose a lot in the last two decades, and there were no big volcanoes, and the measure optical depth (pollution blocking sunlight) doesn’t explain it. It’s why Cohen and others came up with new theories, and stated clearly this behavior “diverges” from the climate models. That we still see people insisting it isn’t happening, that’s just denial. So what year does the boreal winter trend cause the global mean to be negative? [1997-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1997&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (winter only) What is the period when the winter trend brings the annual mean down so much, we see cooling? It was 2002-2013, which is seen best by looking at [the winter trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), then [the annual](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2013&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) BOOM! There it is. But, since this is Science! note that since 2014 was a very warm year (not the warmest however), [the 2002-2014 trend is positive!](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1112&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). This is due to both the annual mean for 2014 being warmer, as well as how these short trend periods are sensitive to the end year for the trend. If you have been actually looking at the GISS maps, and following this by now complicated thread, you might already have guessed it was probably the winter that was warmer, [changing the trend.](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Showing that would take looking at all the seasons, which is a lot of effort. But what the hell, here’s the numbers, these are the trends, not anomalies. 2002-2013 - .17 winter .00 spring .10 summer .04 fall 2002-2014 - .13 winter .05 spring .12 summer .07 fall So it wasn’t the winter, every season in 20104 was warmer. OMG you are still reading? You know how rare it is to find somebody who actually gives a crap about this stuff? ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3662 "2015-01-14T03:27:12Z")
OMG a post slipped in while I was composing. But it’s beautiful. It really is. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The fact that the winter trend for much of the US has become cooling, **doesn’t mean much for a global warming argument**. ( **We will see this shortly** ). > [@DMC](#): > > North America had a cooling trend from 1990 to present, but North America is not representative of the Northern Hemisphere. Sure he said North America rather than the US, but the idea is exactly what I predicted would happen. That was beautiful man, just beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3663 "2015-01-14T03:29:14Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OMG a post slipped in while I was composing. But it’s beautiful. It really is. Sup, troll? ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3664 "2015-01-14T03:36:50Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > North America had a cooling trend from 1990 to present, but North America is not representative of the Northern Hemisphere. That’s incorrect, the trend part. North America shows a cooling trend for winter from [2002-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), not from 1990. The CONUS shows a winter cooling trend from 1990, [as does Europe](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2000&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Alaska shows a clear winter cooling trend [since 2000](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2000&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Asia shows a winter cooling trend [from 1986-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1986&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), while Siberia shows [a cooling trend since 1993](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1993&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3665 "2015-01-14T03:47:38Z")
Something left out of the data so far, is that this is mostly about land temperatures, not sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The ocean data makes it much more complicated, especially in regards to the theory, as global warming theory predicts we should see the most warming over land (oceans temps change very slowly compared to land temps), and so far I’ve avoided bringing the oceans into this. For example, [while the Feb land trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (the largest cooling) is extreme, showing up globally even using 1995-2014, [the same period looking at SSTs shows warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=-1&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). This also is a problem for the theory, as it is the opposite of what we should see, based on greenhouse warming. It’s also a problem because if the oceans are warming, the land temperatures in the boreal winter should be increasing even more. If Cohen (and others) are right, we are seeing a very large negative feedback from global warming. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3666 "2015-01-14T04:56:05Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Something left out of the data so far, is that this is mostly about land temperatures, not sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The ocean data makes it much more complicated, especially in regards to the theory, as global warming theory predicts we should see the most warming over land (oceans temps change very slowly compared to land temps), and so far I’ve avoided bringing the oceans into this. > > For example, [while the Feb land trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (the largest cooling) is extreme, showing up globally even using 1995-2014, [the same period looking at SSTs shows warming](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=-1&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > This also is a problem for the theory, as it is the opposite of what we should see, based on greenhouse warming. It’s also a problem because if the oceans are warming, the land temperatures in the boreal winter should be increasing even more. If Cohen (and others) are right, we are seeing a very large negative feedback from global warming. Here we go with the cherry picking again, eh troll? Why February? It wouldn’t be because the land-surface air anomaly for that month has been lower than January and March for the past four years, would it? I mean January of 1995 would have looked like shit for your little theory, wouldn’t it? March would have also sucked for your theory. And if you are going to use February, why 1995? Why not 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, etc.?. You wouldn’t stoop so low as to pick the second highest February Land-Surface anomaly prior to 2000, only lower than the previously mentioned 1998, just to try and justify your bullshit, would you? Oh, you would. Shit, if one gets to cherry pick the parameters to that extent, one could find data to back up anything they wanted as well as data to back up the opposite. Yep, you’ve now firmly placed yourself in the troll category. The good news is that I no longer think you’re simply a dumbshit like your misogynist buddy, brazzers. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3667 "2015-01-14T13:33:44Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s incorrect, the trend part. North America shows a cooling trend for winter from [2002-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2002&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), not from 1990. > > The CONUS shows a winter cooling trend from 1990, [as does Europe](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2000&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > Alaska shows a clear winter cooling trend [since 2000](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=2000&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > Asia shows a winter cooling trend [from 1986-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1986&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), while Siberia shows [a cooling trend since 1993](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1993&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) If you exclude the portions of the Northern Hemisphere that are warming, it shows a clear cooling trend. Science! ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3668 "2015-01-14T17:08:58Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > If you exclude the portions of the Northern Hemisphere that are warming, it shows a clear cooling trend. Science! I’m actually working on the other side of this issue, compiling a list of areas that show warming during winter, as well as a list of all the seasonal changes. Asymmetrical climate change, it’s the new global 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:** [January 14, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3669 "2015-01-14T17:11:39Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I mean January of 1995 would have looked like shit for your little theory, wouldn’t it? No , and you can easily generate a link to that, rather than just whine about it. > [@DMC](#): > > March would have also sucked for your theory. March is also quite interesting, and will be showing up soon. > [@DMC](#): > > And if you are going to use February, why 1995? Why not 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, etc.?. Go ahead, look at all of those. It’s very interesting actually. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3670 "2015-01-14T20:40:52Z")
Here’s a real simple and easy post to follow. [Cohen et al. 2012](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007/pdf/1748-9326_7_1_014007.pdf) clearly notes the cooling trend, which diverges from the rest of the year, most unexpected, and then continues his theorizing that it is due to climate changes and negative feedback from snow. Here is an [image from the paper](http://oi62.tinypic.com/2uqkn53.jpg), note the map showing the DJF trend, and even a map Here is [the same trend period from GISS](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1988&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) (note how similar they appear) That’s a science based post. A link to the source paper, a link to an important image from the paper, and a link to GISS confirming the data shown. Cohen used 1988-2010 for the trend in the paper. Looking at the trend since then, [1988-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1988&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) it is clear the trend continues, but adds much more of the NH to the cooling areas. [winter trend 1988-2010](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1988&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [winter trend 1988-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1988&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Using just Feb makes it easier to see the areas effected [Feb 1988-2010](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1988&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [Feb 1988-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1988&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) I used 1995-2014 Feb before only because that was the year the cooling trend became so large it made the global mean negative. [1994-2014 still shows the trend clearly](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1994&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob), as does any other year (back to 1988) for the start of the trend. Hell, even [1985-2014](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) shows the areas most effected by the unexpected cooling. Jan 1985-2014 also shows cooling in some areas, including, of all things, [the Chicago/Great Lakes/Upper Midwest area](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). This also [shows up for February](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) of course. In fact, winters (according to the GISS data) for Chicago (and surroundings) show a cooling trend [even using the last thirty years of data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=1203&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Kind of makes it hard to claim winters are warming faster than any other season. Especially when [you compare the summer trend](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=0603&year1=1985&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). Not that simple scientific facts like these, or logic and reason, are going to change anyone’s mind. :rolleyes: (and yes, despite all that, some idiot troll will be along to tell us it’s just local cooling and doesn’t matter) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3671 "2015-01-14T21:17:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > . . . Asymmetrical climate change, it’s the new global warming. Good thing the continents are perfectly regular polygons, with fixed altitudes to land masses, and that the oceans are all of exactly the same depth at all points. An irregular-shaped geography might engender currents that might transport warm or cold air or water for untold thousands of miles, driving some kind of illusory asymmetry. ---
**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:** [January 14, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3672 "2015-01-14T21:38:01Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Good thing the continents are perfectly regular polygons, . :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3673 "2015-01-15T06:20:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No , and you can easily generate a link to that, rather than just whine about it. Dude, we’re laughing at you, not whining. [Looks like significant warming when using January](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > [@](#): > > March is also quite interesting, and will be showing up soon. [I’ll save you the effort.](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=03&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Sorry, [Trololo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM#t=01m54s), looks like a warming trend as well. > [@](#): > > Go ahead, look at all of those. It’s very interesting actually. Okay. Feb land trend from… [1994 +0.03](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1994&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1993 +0.16](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1993&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1992 +0.26](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1992&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1991 +0.28](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1991&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1990 +0.26](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1989 +0.34](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1989&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) [1988 +0.37](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1988&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Yep, they all show a warming trend, without exception, as does 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, etc. In fact, starting in all years prior to your cherry picked year of 1995, there is a warming trend for your beloved February land temp. Keep on picking that cherry, troll. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3674 "2015-01-15T14:39:34Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Dude, we’re laughing at you, not whining. [Looks like significant warming when using January](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=01&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob). > > [I’ll save you the effort.](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=03&year1=1995&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) Sorry, [Trololo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM#t=01m54s), looks like a warming trend as well. > > Okay. > > Feb land trend from… > > [1994 +0.03](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1994&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1993 +0.16](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1993&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1992 +0.26](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1992&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1991 +0.28](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1991&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1990 +0.26](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1990&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1989 +0.34](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1989&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > [1988 +0.37](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=02&year1=1988&year2=2014&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=rob) > > Yep, they all show a warming trend, without exception, as does 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, etc. In fact, starting in all years prior to your cherry picked year of 1995, there is a warming trend for your beloved February land temp. Keep on picking that cherry, troll. But you DO see that the waming trend gets smaller and smaller? The 1994-2014 is 0.03 which makes 0.15 in a century. If you go 2004-2014 is -0.26 ---
**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:** [January 15, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3675 "2015-01-15T19:02:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > But you DO see that the waming trend gets smaller and smaller? Talk about ironic humor. He thinks the list proves there is no winter warming, rather than the obvious trend the figures show clearly. I doubt very much he physically can see it. It’s not intentional, beliefs can be so powerful, they actually cause us to see something that isn’t there, or to not see what is right before our eyes. Which is why double blind experiments/studies are so important for actual science. The global warmer belief prevents them from seeing what is actually on the page. Then there is the other issue, which makes it all so much more complicated. Obviously some people are dead set on denial of the winter trend data. This is because they know good and damn well warming winters is not something global warming is supposed to cause. So it challenges their belief, so they deny it is happening. But, and this should not be news at this point, there is the theory, claim, idea, whatever you want to call it, that global warming is causing colder winters. [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) [Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11191520/Cold-winters-have-been-caused-by-global-warming-say-scientists.html) Or even the concept that colder winters proves global warming is happening. [http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-Cold-Winters.html) These sort of links have been posted so many times now, he can’t actually be ignorant of this. And yet, he is still defending the idea that winters are warming, faster than any other season, just as the theory predicted. Priceless. So it’s just so weird, it really is. We have winters are not warming. Or winters are warming. If winters are warming, that is evidence of global warming. If winters are cooling, that is evidence of global warming. At some point the person claiming we can have confidence in the theory, has to make a statement of scientific integrity, and predict what will happen due to rising CO2 levels. In the past, as well as currently for the models, there was little uncertainty, warming winters were evidence of global warming. It is what was predicted. The IPCC reports are full of warnings about warmer winters. Not colder ones with more snow. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3676 "2015-01-16T00:57:44Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > But you DO see that the waming trend gets smaller and smaller? The 1994-2014 is 0.03 which makes 0.15 in a century. > If you go 2004-2014 is -0.26 While I was really pointing out that FX specifically chose 1995 (which had a very hot February) and 2014 (which had a relatively cold February), no, I don’t see that the trend gets smaller. What I do see is that the past few years have had a February that was closer to the baseline than it has been in a while, i.e. natural cycle of upward trends. This was especially true in 2014. A month here and there being colder than expected doesn’t demonstrate that the warming trend is getting smaller. The trend, specifically how much hotter any given February is than it was 20 years prior is actually pretty flat. [You can see it here](https://public.tableausoftware.com/profile/dmc7541#!/vizhome/20yeartemptrendsforFebruary/Sheet1). For the trend starting in 1975, I ended in 1994. 1976 ends in 1995. 1977 ends in 1996, etc. Looks flat to me. By flat, I don’t mean there is no increase in Feb temps over the 20 year periods, I mean it is increasing by about .44 degrees C on average and has met that value or exceeded it in 12 of the 15 last cycles in that chart. Now, I can certainly pick other starting or ending points, or different cycle lengths, and come up with any theory that you want, but if I take a large enough sample size, I’m going to get similar results. Clear? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3677 "2015-01-16T02:05:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > But you DO see that the waming trend gets smaller and smaller? The 1994-2014 is 0.03 which makes 0.15 in a century. > If you go 2004-2014 is -0.26 Just for kicks, if you really want to see the winter warming trend, [you can have a lot of fun with this](https://public.tableausoftware.com/views/GISSData/GISSDatafilterable?:embed=y&:display_count=no). I included every single year from GISS for which there is complete data (1881-2013) and you can select any of the columns they have to offer, showing the anomaly from baseline for that period. I pre-selected winter and used the entire set of years as a starting point, which makes it pretty obvious that there is no shrinkage of the warming trend for winters. Assuming you’re not just another one of FX’s little shills (and I have no idea of your posting history on the topic, so I’m certainly not making such an assumption), you might find this enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3678 "2015-01-16T03:16:43Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > yeah, but at least we still got [Climate Change.](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html) Normally the winters where warming up and they called it global warming. Now last year and this year winters are very cold.:mad::mad: Tell that to people who live in Dallas and Atlanta experiencing colder than normal winters.:mad::mad: Even some parts of North Florida are colder than normal. No explanation of why the colder than normal winters in US even in the southern states. Now they call it climate change than global 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:** [January 16, 2015, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3679 "2015-01-16T04:00:10Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Now they call it climate change than global warming. No, and here is some scientific data about the naming thing. [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate\_by\_any\_other\_name.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html) > [@](#): > > To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1 > > Broecker’s term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate? > > For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So “inadvertent climate modification,” while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge. > > The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3 > > In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.” ---
**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:** [January 16, 2015, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/3680 "2015-01-16T04:06:32Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Just for kicks, if you really want to see the winter warming trend, You are using global mean data, when the subject of Cohen et al. and others discussing the boreal winter trends is the middle and upper latitude regions, and for land only. If you made up a cool data display (and it is, no doubt) showing just the northern hemisphere land data, it would be much better for your case. The only connection to the global mean is that the NH land trend for winters is so much cooler, it actually brings the annual mean down. You seem to be missing this essential fact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=183) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=185)