If you do, I've got a really nice bridge I'll like to sell you.

-----------------------

Flunky: "Lemme try to explain this.

Climate is *complicated*."

Yes too complicated for you to understand.

Rush Limbaugh had a good analogy. Heat your oven to 350 degrees. Stick a frozen pizza in it. Then come back a few minutes later and say that the pizza is colder due to the heat. That is what these greenies are trying to tell us.

There is a poll in the news right now that 1 out of 4 children in the US don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. That 25% are Obama voters and AGW believers. When I was in school you wouldn't pass if you didn't know that much.

Today we have the people like Trevor who pontificate and puff themselves up and actually fool these 25%. That's who they target. Just like Trevor did in this question. He puts on an elaborate answer that doesn't answer the question. This is snake oil salesmanship in its highest degree.

In direct answer to your question. NO! In fact that it is hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid.

Although I am a nuetral party on this debate, it is true that a slight warming is a trend that enables greater evaporation of surface water on a global scale, thus greater masses of clouds and atmospheric water-gas, and a potentiometry of reflection and refraction of sunlight that is much more complex than predictiing 'if '- temps for CO2 , in general, so would temps go up or down because of it?

note that water is the most difficult compound in the universe for us to understand because its behavior is contrary to scientific sense in three distinct ways. Maybe you can derive a likelihood using the metaphysical water complacency of your own ...pet penguins.

1] it floats as a solid in its own liquid

2] an increase in pressure melts it as a solid

3] it swells when it solidifies (freezes)

Last, I've heard still dry air is the best insulator. mathematically, the worst insulator is either moving dry air or still wet air.

That's not a bridge, it's a road with a puddle on it. I understand why you think it's a bridge, but I'm not buying it.

Similarly, cold weather in part of the U.S. is weather, not climate. I understand why you think your part of the U.S. is global and cold weather means cooling climate, but I'm not buying that either.

If you're going to denounce global climate change, try to understand it first. Since you don't understand the subject, your attempt at a clever quip fails miserably.

edit: All the other 'climate change is a hoax' people are Americans using the cold weather where they live as evidence - like they do every winter. Since your question included no details it was reasonable to assume you were one of those.

Now I see that you're either 1) someone who doesn't understand statistics, or 2) someone who understands statistics well and uses them selectively to mislead. You chose a very warm year as your starting point to make the graph look like cooling, that's the cherry picking Trevor referred to.

The way to get meaningful information out of a graph like that is to use a longer time period to reduce the effect of year-to-year variations. That site's data starts in 1979, so use that as a start date and see how the graph looks.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...

Lemme try to explain this.

Climate is *complicated*.

There are things like ENSO and PDO that will change the surface temperature, increasing it in one phase and decreasing it in another. Those things can not make long-term changes in temperature, especially since they're just moving heat around, not creating/absorbing or destroying/emitting it. But those things are still happening.

So, over the course of, for example, a full PDO cycle, the average global surface temperature will go up, then go down, then end up back where it started, in the absence of any other influence. If there is a change in temperature that's longer than any of those cycles, and is heading in a single direction, then it can't be PDO or any other cycle.

But, in the *short* term, those cycles can make one year warmer or colder than the previous year. So you need to look at the long term, or at least look at a couple of starting and ending points near the term you're looking for to see if you're seeing a "real" trend or not.

So, let's do the latter.

Using the same temperature set, these time spans show warming: '99-'13, '99-'12, '96-'13, '96-'12

These time spans show cooling: '98-'13, '98-'12, '98-'10

These time spans are level or nearly so: '97-'13, '97-'12, '98-'11, '00-'12, '00-'13

So, are you saying that from '98-'10 (a "cooling" pair), which was between '96 and '13 (a "warming" pair), it was simultaneously warming and cooling? Or do you recognize that kind of cherry picking as silly and agree to look at longer-term trends?

As to the question you actually asked:

Yes, global warming can cause regional cooling. Because warming can disrupt circulation patterns, which can cause an area to get cold water or air that it otherwise would not, or not get warm water or air that it normally would.

Every weather system is a consequence of the presence of heat energy in the atmosphere, including cold weather events such as ice and snow. If any change is made to the energy balance be it warming or cooling, then there are going to be global consequences for the weather.

The concept of how a general warming trend can cause isolated instances of cooling shouldn’t be that hard to comprehend, it’s been explained on numerous occasions and is a well understood and documented consequence of global warming.

During periods of warming it’s the average global temperature that increases. It doesn’t follow that every temperature, everywhere in the world, at every point in time, has to go up; there are clearly going to be exceptions.

You have of course cherry-picked 1998 as the starting point for your graph, that was the year of the strongest El Nino episode on record and was therefore an unusually warm year. Had you chosen 1999 instead, then you could argue that the world has been warming since then: