Cooling trends of up to -2.15°C per decade are not consistent with the “global warming” narrative.
According to a new study (Li et al., 2025), 98% of the Central Eurasia study area (40-65°N and 50-130°E) experienced significantly declining temperatures from 2004-2020.
Specifically, the region cooled by nearly -2.0°C – a rate of -1.425°C per decade – from 2004 to 2018.
The authors attribute the cooling trend to a 5.38% per decade increase in snow cover percentage (SCP) across the study area.
Image Source: Li et al., 2025
“Specifically, the region cooled by nearly -2.0°C – a rate of -1.425°C per decade – from 2004 to 2018.”
No, it didn’t. What Richard nowhere mentions is that there was a cooling of autumn temperatures only. And the paper says that this was due to earlier snow cover, caused by more frequent southerly winds, bringing in more humidity.
And of course, it wasn’t “Eurasia”. It was a specific region of central Eurasia, mainly Mongolia and a chunk of Kazakhstan..
So the images that were provided didn’t mention that? Try again.
Or perhaps you meant that autumn cooling doesn’t affect annual cooling.
“The model revealed a unique phenomenon of autumn cooling in Eurasia against the background of global warming.”
No doubt the planet has warmed over the last 50 years.
Is it man made?
Is it dangerous?
Will it continue?
In Eurasia, not of Eurasia.
The word “in” implies that it is a part of Eurasia that is warming, not the whole thing.
Your (and Nick’s) complaints, are as usual, groundless.
The headline of the article says “across Eurasia”, so Nick’s comment is valid!
No, Nick is the one misleading as Richards made sure we can see the Autumn temperature data in the link as he highlighted it in YELLOW.
The headline can’t cover everything which is why reading the ENTIRE article will fill in the details.
Still “New Study Documents Significant Cooling Across Eurasia Since 2004”
is a misleading headline since it doesn’t mention that it’s a part of Eurasia or that it refers only to the autumn season.
You have to read into the small print to find that out (he doesn’t highlight the part that says the trend is opposite in the other three seasons)!
You have the same problem that Nick has expecting the headline tell the whole story surely you long ago learned that Headlines are a hook to get attention, the body of the article is where the reader gets the information.
He focuses on Autumn temperature trends as the published paper in the link is based on it specifically.
Here is the headline inside the link:
Did you bother to read the ABSTRACT?
============
Hell, it is posted right there in front of your lazy eyes at the top of this page, you fell for Nick nitpicking bullshit many here are tired of it stop defending it!
Check the headline again:
“New Study Documents Significant Cooling Across Eurasia Since 2004”
No, it wasn’t across Eurasia, and it was autumn only.
I did. Did you read it in its entirety, or just wanted to paraphrase?
You didn’t answer about the annual temperature, why is that?
Nick’s job is to obfuscate and confuse.
When he reads articles, it’s not for understanding but rather to find something, anything, he can complain about and get all of us arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, rather than discussing the article and the science.
The paper showed that only the autumn temperature was cooling, spring, summer and winter showed an increasing trend.
Which Kenneth Richards is making clear in HIS blog post.
You are insulting many here when you seem to imply, we fall apart over a headline and ignore the content.
LOL
I read through the paper twice, never found your claim of the spring, summer and winter warming up, maybe I missed it but until you post the quote and page, I will think you made it up because you are at war with THIS blogs headline.
Read the answers to your post again.
The headline isn’t the abstract, nor the paper.
So, rtp completely.
So, let me get this straight, the “hottest week ever” in the UK is proof CAGW but a cooling trend in Eurasia over a decade and a half is meaningless. Got it.
CAGW is a religion, not a scientific theory.
You need to stop your chronically misleading bullshit since the article is where the details are found in it, the headline is just a hook to get attention.
And it was a chronically misleading “hook”.
Wow are you that clueless, it is the standard in many places to make a hook out of the headline to get attention which was actually true but incomplete which was easily filled in when reading the “fine print” in the body of the article.
You must label all your drawers at home to be this silly.
Admissions of an increase in snow in Autumn. 🙂
Also been an increase in NH winter snow…
Poor children “won’t know what snow is” !! 😉
Increase in autumn snow in a mountainous region of central Eurasia, decrease in other seasons.
Northern Hemisphere snow cover is stable, other seasons it is decreasing.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/24/6/JHM-D-22-0182.1.xml
The children “won’t know what snow is” refers to S England and the prediction has been found to be true.
Now you are being dishonest since the paper was specific to Autumn time frame only which I notice you didn’t rebut at all.
The paper I read about children not knowing snow was US east coast based.
The “children won’t know what snow is” originated from a quote by David Viner in an article by the Independent.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf
Please show where Viner indicated he was only referring to S England, or made any prediction specifying S England. He didn’t. It was a general statement, not a local prediction.
Even, so, such a prediction would have been wrong, nevertheless. “Snow causes severe delays in Devon and Cornwall8 January 2025”
So you are wrong on multiple counts.
I linked to the original article, read it! The article was specifically about snow in England and referred to the south-east of England and lowland Britain. Viner was asked questions about the snow which is when he referred to children not knowing what snow is. He also said that heavy snow will return occasionally and we will be unprepared “Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time” Which as you pointed out was accurate!
Oh dearie me, less snow in Spring and Summer, when farmers are trying to grow crops etc and plant life is trying to do its growing ….
What a pity !! 😉
And NH winter snow is increasing.!
‘. It was a specific region of central Eurasia, mainly Mongolia and a chunk of Kazakhstan..’
So roughly the size of the entire region above the Arctic circle. Does anybody want to check my working?
The area between 40° and 65° North latitude and 50° to 130° East longitude has been calculated using the spherical quadrilateral formula for Earth’s surface. The result is approximately: 19,500, 000 km²
Looks right to me. That’s a bit over 13% of the total land area so a fairly significant portion.
By the same token, had autumn temperatures Mongolia and Kazakhstan risen by nearly 2.0C from 2004 to 2018 this would not be evidence for Global Warming?
If the temperature in the same region had risen 0.1C over the same time period, would Nick still have complained about the wording?
According to the leading lights of climate alarmism, CO2 is supposedly so powerful that it will over power all climate cycles. According to them, such a long term reversal should be impossible.
Beyond that, the Arctic/Antarctic are supposed to be the fastest warming regions.
Funny how all the areas that have little actual coverage with weather stations show a huge positive trend in all the global temperature sets when modeled, exaggerating the global warming trend, only to find out that an actual study of the region shows nothing like what was modeled.
The known data has a gentle slope so the unknown data must be remarkable to achieve a hockey stick. The hockey stick creation process may finally be reaching its rational end – new sources of hockey stick blade are added at a slower pace than old sources of hockey stick blade are removed resulting in either a bladeless stick or RCP 8.5 estimates.
Climate hysteria is a sign of mental illness according to Jordan Peterson writing in the Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/22/net-zero-is-a-mental-illness/
“climate doomsayers are possessed by an ideology much more akin to a psychogenic epidemic than they are purveyors of any information remotely scientific.”
It’s over Nick. Enough people have now seen through the fibs and exaggerations.
Your complaint is understandable, but you are also misleading as well since Richards highlighted the Autum temperature numbers as yellow in the link, he never tried to cover over that which is 1/4 of a year thus significant cooling period which will likely influence winter and spring temperatures as well.
And yet the paper shows that snow cover in Spring, Summer and Winter has decreased over the same period!
Which no one here is disputing, did you forget your coffee this morning?
The paper is focusing on AUTUMN! which you haven’t disputed at all did you forget your glasses?
What is your purpose here, to spread dishonest diversions?
It is such a devastating problem to have less snow in Spring and Summer.
Puzzle is,,, Why do you want snow in summer ???
Seems like a pretty dumb idea to me.
And your point, other than “so what”?
The study speaks for itself.
Also, Mr. Richard’s first sentence clearly stated “Central Eurasia” and the third sentence clearly said “across the study area”. And he did not say or even imply that the study period was any different than what the study’s authors wrote – he said literally nothing at all about seasonal applicability, but he DID post the actual paper which said, “fall”.
You are playing with words trying to make it sound like something entirely different from what was actually written in the summary post.
Gee, maybe your real problem is you just don’t like the study results. So you try to confuse and obfuscate matters by implying incorrect language and employing rhetorical tricks like a typical propagandist does.
Surely a climate warrior with as much experience and direct knowledge as you could to a lot better than that flim-flammery.
Well said!
Bravo!
What Stokes does best IS flim-flammery.
Nick, isn’t the theory reliant on increased humidity resulting in warmer temperatures…so how did it make it cooler? or was the trend less cooler than otherwise. Whatever otherwise might be.
The is a forerunner of what is to come.
Warmer oceans lead to more atmospheric moisture as the Sun moves over the SH and the NH begins to cool. That cause more early snowfall that builds through boreal winter. Then takes longer to melt.
An the NH oceans are only 300 year into a 9,500 year warming trend but will be getting lower as the ice mounts up. The lapse rate does the rest.
Throw this into the mix: Green & Soon just did the test the IPCC refuses to do. And to summarize the pair’s findings: Forecasts built on CO2-driven models were worse than useless. Solar-based models, by contrast, worked—even when tested decades out.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol-5.1-Green_and_Soon-Model-Forecasts.pdf
The past is cyclical. The CAGW crowd wants us to ignore this and believe that what has happened since the 30’s predicts the future. The linear progression of the climate models never bends. If past is prologue then more cycles are what should be forecast.
Yes, and I’ve found that Jovian planets modulate solar activity. It’s interesting that while the while beats of Jupiter and Saturn are present in the temperature spectrums, Jupiter and Saturn orbits are not.
I suspect this is because both are involved in synchronizing the Sun’s internal physics. The so-called 11-year cycle actually varies around Jupiter’s orbital period and aligns with Earth’s warm and cool periods.
I don’t know about a 9500 year warming cycle; we’re slowly entering another glacial period. Glacial cycles are highly periodic as shown by my 3-term harmonic model. The last point in the red projection is 16,000 years from now.
Hmm… How does one know if the increased snow cover caused the cooling or if the cooling caused the increased snow cover? Or maybe something else caused both? Correlation is fun, but causation is tricky.
The solar intensity has been increasing in April and May in the NH for 300 years. If the snow was not reflecting the EMR, it would be warmer.
The trends now observed are what takes Earth back into glaciation.
Making snow is energy intensive it takes the equivalent of burning 500kg of coal to get one tonne of ice from the ocean to land. More snow requires more heat into oceans.
Cooling trends of up to -2.15°C per decade are not consistent with the “global warming” narrative.
If you listen to the Met Office you wouldn’t know that this year has been… a decidedly cool one thus far.
Why was the UK cooler than normal in January while global temperatures hit record high? https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-january-cooler-world-record-temperatures-171427178.html
Although the BBC went with: “Record January warmth puzzles climate scientists” They are funny.
“2025 ‘likely’ to be in top three warmest years: UK Met Office”
https://www.spacedaily.com/afp/241212114730.ou34jadh.html
It isn’t working out right for them, maybe an airfield or even a non-existent weather station might help them out with that? Nonetheless the dear old BBC has another scare for us; a marine heat wave, no less:
“UK sea temperatures soar after exceptionally warm Spring”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7533y6l3k0o
Not so on the land.
So, according to Nitpick Nick, Global Warming causes snow, and cooling. Got it.
No amount of contrary evidence will ever shake Stokes’ belief in CAGW.
That depends on who is paying.
Give Nick some credit, he is almost always the first one to post a comment, so at least he delivers on what he is paid to do.
It was “cold because hot” or even “very hot, very cold, very wet and very dry. All at the same time.” almost from the start. Credo Quia Absurdum Est.
Surface temperatures vary between about-80 C, and +80 C.
No area maintains constant temperature – chaos of atmosphere, aquasphere, lithosphere.
Floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps – from minutes to millenia.
A thermometer reading tells you nothing about the heat that caused it.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. No GHE, just ignorant and gullible people who believe in fairytales.
Spot on.
Daytime temperatures in my area vary from dawn to peak by up to 20 C.
Makes me very afraid of a 50 year warming of 2-4 C.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
One nit to pick; where on earth did anyone ever record a temperature of 80°C?? That’s 176°F!! The hottest temperature ever recorded was in Death Valley in 1913 at 56.7°C or 134.1°F. Do you know something different?
Looking for heat bursts I found
15 July 1972 93.9 °C (201.0 °F)SatelliteOasis at Death Valley
(United States)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth
These records concern ground temperatures
Not really. Wikipedia –
The Lut Desert might get a little hotter, and the surface at the bottom of a solar pond can reach over 90 C.
I usually say plus or minus 90 C, but I felt a little conservative this time.
Nothing wrong with nit picking!
You said that they vary between -90 and 90 last week, what caused the change?
Feelings of conservatism. Why do you ask?
Caused by snow cover ? Just a “wet roads cause rain” hypothesis.
This funny video details the physics why you would see cooling in that region.
https://app.screencast.com/DFd1viHxsRjq7
Milankovic’ Orbital Theory makes specific, rather exact predictions. At least three highly competent groups – Lasker, Berger, and Tremaine, have computed the Milankovic Variables (MV) with closely similar results. The calculation works its way, iteratively, backwards from the present orbits of a multitude of solar system objects, down to the asteroid Vesta.
The question whether the global climate follows the orbital variations is open to disputation.
My colleague, John Parmentola, and I decided to survey MV ‘correlations’ several years ago. The attached graph is one of many, possible, suggestive comparisons. The right-hand scale is the Milankovic insolation variation at 65N, compared with the Vostok ice core temperature anomaly (on a relative scale, and of course, the temperature anomaly may be unrelated to MV). Solstice insolation at 65N shows over 50 W/m2 increase at the end of the last glacial. The same variable shows a 40 W/m2 decrease since its peak about 10,000 YBP, implying that the globe should be well into a new glaciation, but the temperature anomaly has hardly budged in the ice core records, declining only about a degree from the peak about 8500 YBP. However, that is not a serious objection since it is consistently observed that cooling into a glaciation is slow and irregular, while warming out of a glaciation is rapid and smooth (except for the Younger Dryas, an apparently unique event in last 1 MYs of the ice core record.
What, then, do ice core records and the Milankovic orbital theory tell us then about climate?
What about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? Has the CO2 greenhouse effect altered the climate and by how much? There, we are on quivering ground since only climate models exist as a guide to the future or to back-project into the past: (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407229111). CO2 (in ice core gas bubbles) increased from about 170 ppm to 280 ppm, lagging the temperature rise, since the last glacial maximum. That is recorded fact. Three completely different EMICs, in the PNAS paper, predict, unequivocally, a very different result – that the pre-industrial CO2 increase would have forced a warming climate continuously over the past 10,000 years. However, the predicted warming is not observed. The observed peak and then cooling of the climate was not possible to reproduce via models considered acceptable to the modelers. The conclusion of the modelers is that the proxies must be in error, preferring models to measurements.
Now, a cooling trend is seen in Eurasia. I would remind the readers that a cooling trend was seen in the Arctic in the 60s and 70s, portending a new glaciation disaster (portrayed in a well-known documentary with Leonard Nemoy), followed by a warming disaster predicted by climate models, but with limited support from measurement. The Eurasian cooling might be considered disturbing since cooling is anticipated from MV processes. The 25 times smaller CO2 Greenhouse seems hardly strong enough to oppose cooling and to lead to a highly desirable observed combination – a slightly warmer Earth, with slightly higher precipitation, and increased CO2 to enhance plant growth (and, hence, food production). Nonetheless – that is what is happening- the best of all possible worlds as Voltaire supposed in Candide.
Overall, then, the portents are propitious! What a wonderful world in which to live!
What you have not realised is that the Earth is no longer ice mountains across the NH as it was 20.000YBP. Last time the solar EMR at 65N started to rise, there was so much ice calving into the NH oceans that the oceans could not warm up. That meant there was very little snow and the melt accelerated as the sea level started to rise despite the increasing solar intensity.
With very little ice coming into the oceans now, the oceans are warming rapidly and snowfall is rising strongly. Snow is made from water that comes out of oceans. It is an energy intensive process. It require a lot of sunshine to make snow. Then the snow needs heat advection to melt because it reflects too much sunshine to melt with just sunlight.
Glaciation is a bistable state. Once it starts, the ice builds until it exceeds the carrying capacity of the land then collapse as the calving overtakes heat into the oceans so that little snow is produced.
Change in the – was omitted…
“25 times smaller change in the CO2 Greenhouse”.