Hitting Pause: Researchers Debunk the Global Warming Hiatus

By Glen Martin

A recent study by Berkeley researchers and the nonprofit Berkeley Earth has confirmed something most of us thought we already knew; namely, that the globe has been growing steadily warmer in recent decades.

Published in Science Advances in January, the study supported earlier findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing that there had been no global warming hiatus at the beginning of this century, as had been previously reported.

In case you missed it, “global warming hiatus” has been a popular talking point among climate change skeptics—a reference to a reported slowdown in the rise of global surface temperatures. The claim wasn’t based on fake news or misinformation. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, surface temperatures in the 15-year period from 1998 to 2012 increased at a rate that was, depending on the observational data set considered, only one-third to one-half the combined rate for the 60-year period from 1951 to 2012.

Most climatologists found the trend paradoxical, since greenhouse gas concentrations continued to rise and the slowdown in temperature increase ran counter to the projections of most computer models. As climate change deniers seized on the data as evidence that alarm over global warming was overblown, scientists struggled to understand what was going on. Theories to account for the missing heat ranged from decreased solar activity and increased volcanic eruptions, to decadal ocean cycles.

Then, in 2015, NOAA scientists found a simpler explanation. It turned out modern buoy-based marine measuring systems tend to report somewhat cooler temperatures than the ship-based temperature readings that were the norm decades ago. This made sense, since shipboard measurements were taken from ocean water piped through intake valves into hot engine rooms.

When scientists adjusted for the “cold bias” of buoy-based systems, they found that average ocean temperatures had actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000—almost twice as fast as the hiatus-supporting data indicated. Correct for the bias, in other words, and the hiatus disappeared.

Climate change deniers, particularly in Washington, D.C., cried foul. The House of Representatives science committee subpoenaed emails and other internal communications from NOAA scientists, who were accused by Texas congressman Lamar Smith of having “altered temperature data to get politically correct results and then widely publicized their conclusions as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change we have experienced.”

“… the hiatus seems to disappear if you make certain adjustments to how the research is conducted.”

The American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced the subpoena, and NOAA officials declined to comply with the order on the grounds that internal discussions are confidential.

Politics aside, the basic question remained: Did NOAA get it right? To find out, researchers with Berkeley Earth launched their own review using data from robotic floats, satellites, and buoys. As explained to Berkeley News by lead author of the study and Berkeley graduate student Zeke Hausfather, it was not necessary to “smush together data from different instruments, which leads to a lot of judgment calls about how you weight one versus the other.” Instead, the researchers asked themselves, “What if we create a temperature record just from the buoys, or just from the satellites, or just from the Argo floats, so there is no mixing and matching of instruments?”

No matter which dataset they analyzed, they got the same conclusion: The 2015 NOAA analysis pretty much nailed it. Or as Elizabeth Muller, the executive director and cofounder of Berkeley Earth, observed, “… the hiatus seems to disappear if you make certain adjustments to how the research is conducted.” She added, however, that understanding climate requires that we concentrate on long-term, not short-term datasets.

“Our ocean temperature records go back to the 1700s, and it’s important to look at the issue from that perspective. When you look at that broad dataset, it’s clear there has been a long-term warming trend. Over short periods, fluctuations are common. Sometimes temperature trends are up, or down, or steady. Fluctuations can be rapid or slow. Statistically, it doesn’t mean anything.”

From the Spring 2017 Virtue and Vice issue of California.
Filed under: Science + Health
Share this article:
Google+ Reddit

Comments

Of course they are going to do their best to find a way to debunk the pause. They have two critical reasons for creating this excuse. If the pause is real it puts into jeopardy the entire AGW hypothesis upon which their research funding and scientific reputations are dependent. Why a person’s livelihood and credibility are at risk, they will do anything to protect that. I have been very concerned about the threat the AGW (human-caused catastrophic global warming) “scientific consensus” poses for our nation’s socioeconomic health. As a response to this potential threat I have written a major paper titled: “History and Ignorance of “Sky Is Falling” Theories with Special Emphasis on Anthropogenic Global Warming” Here is a link to the paper. If you read it and believe it has value, please pass the link on to others. http://fregger.com/Busiiness/Sky%20is%20Falling.html
No, the pause didn’t put the AGW hypothesis in jeopardy. It just wasn’t what most climate models predicted. But keep in mind, the trend was still upward and no one ever proposed that greenhouse gases were the only thing that could affect climate. But the point of the story is that the so-called pause didn’t actually happen. Also, keep in mind that Berkeley Earth’s founder, Richard Muller, was previously a climate change skeptic. (We wrote about his first foray into the modern temperature record here: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2011-good-fight/hot...) Finally, if you worry that the socioeconomic costs of averting climate change are high, consider the costs of sea level rise alone.
Sea level rise is not a problem. We will easily adapt, the rise is extremely slow and must perceived instances have other causes.
Hello PJ who I assume is Glen Martin the author of this article. Can you point me to the specific source of the statement about the satellite record: “What if we create a temperature record just from the buoys, or just from the satellites, or just from the Argo floats, so there is no mixing and matching of instruments? No matter which dataset they analyzed, they got the same conclusion.” I could not quickly spot the source for “just from the satellites” to support this statement. RSS and UAH show the hiatus or pause. Berkeley Earth: Examining the Recent “Pause” in Global Warming, p5 has a graph that shows between 1998 and current 2012, a downward trend, and certainly no significant recent trend. “Satellite records show some stagnation of temperatures in recent years…” Thanks.
Per the last IPCC report, the most extreme projection for 2100 sea level rise: “RCP8.5 giving the most (0.63 [0.45 to 0.82].” The high end of this most extreme projection is .82 meters in sea level rise by 2100, that is 32”. Does not seem like much. Thanks.

Add new comment