{"id":19932,"date":"2017-01-22T08:17:44","date_gmt":"2017-01-22T13:17:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/?p=19932"},"modified":"2017-01-22T08:17:44","modified_gmt":"2017-01-22T13:17:44","slug":"there-was-no-pause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2017\/01\/there-was-no-pause\/","title":{"rendered":"There was no pause"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I think that the idea of a pause in the global warming has been a red herring ever since it was suggested, and we have commented on this several times here on RC: On how data gaps<\/a> in some regions (eg. the Arctic) may explain an underestimation<\/a> of the recent warming. We have also explained how natural oscillations may give the impression of a faux pause<\/a>. Now, when we know the the global mean temperature for 2016<\/a>, it’s even more obvious.<\/p>\n

Easterling and Wehner (2009)<\/a><\/span> explained that it is not surprising to see some brief periods with an apparent decrease in a temperature record that increases in jumps and spurts, and Foster and Rahmstorf (2012)<\/a><\/span> showed in a later paper how temperature data from the most important observations show consistent global warming trends when known short-term influences such as El Ni\u00f1o Southern oscillation (ENSO), volcanic aerosols and solar variability are accounted for. <\/p>\n

A recent paper by Hausfather et al. (2017)<\/a><\/span> adds little new to our understanding, although it confirms that there has not been a recent \u201chiatus\u201d in the global warming. However, if there are doubts about a physical condition, then further scientific research is our best option for establishing the facts. This is exactly what this recent study did. <\/p>\n

The latest findings confirm the results of Karl et al. 2015<\/a><\/span> from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which Gavin described in a previous post<\/a> here on RC. The NOAA analysis received unusual attention because of the harassment<\/a> it drew from the chair of the US House Science Committee and the subpoena<\/a> demand for emails. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Science is convincing because it builds on independent assessments, which either confirm or disagree with previous findings. A scientific consensus is established when many independent lines of evidence underpin the same conclusions.<\/p>\n

It is important to realize that science is about universal truths, which means that you should get a consistent picture in a comprehensive analysis. The idea of a hiatus was indeed inconsistent with other indicators, such as the global sea level<\/a> which continued to rise unabated (Watson et al, 2015)<\/a><\/span>. And there was no reason<\/a> to think that changes in the cryosphere and precipitation had ceased either.<\/p>\n

More than 70% of earth\u2019s area is oceans, and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) carry a large weight in the global mean surface temperature estimates. Karl et al. (2015) reported a cold bias in recent SSTs due to changing observing network. This bias gave the false appearance of a slow-down in the warming of the oceans, and by taking into account artifacts from a change in the observing network, Karl et al found a more pronounced warming in the recent decade. Hausfather et al. (2017) studied these more closely, and their findings confirmed the NOAA analysis. <\/p>\n

Rising levels of CO2<\/sub> may not only result in a global mean surface warming, but it is also possible that it accelerates the turnaround of the hydrological cycle (Benestad, 2016)<\/a><\/span>. So even a hypothetical period could take place with a reduced warming rate, but it would be accompanied with an accelerated atmospheric vertical overturning.<\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. <\/a>\nD.R. Easterling, and M.F. Wehner, \"Is the climate warming or cooling?\", Geophysical Research Letters<\/i>, vol. 36, 2009. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1029\/2009GL037810<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n
  2. <\/a>\nG. Foster, and S. Rahmstorf, \"Global temperature evolution 1979\u20132010\", Environmental Research Letters<\/i>, vol. 6, pp. 044022, 2011. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1088\/1748-9326\/6\/4\/044022<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n
  3. <\/a>\nZ. Hausfather, K. Cowtan, D.C. Clarke, P. Jacobs, M. Richardson, and R. Rohde, \"Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records\", Science Advances<\/i>, vol. 3, 2017. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1126\/sciadv.1601207<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n
  4. <\/a>\nT.R. Karl, A. Arguez, B. Huang, J.H. Lawrimore, J.R. McMahon, M.J. Menne, T.C. Peterson, R.S. Vose, and H. Zhang, \"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus\", Science<\/i>, vol. 348, pp. 1469-1472, 2015. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1126\/science.aaa5632<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n
  5. <\/a>\nC.S. Watson, N.J. White, J.A. Church, M.A. King, R.J. Burgette, and B. Legresy, \"Unabated global mean sea-level rise over the satellite altimeter era\", Nature Climate Change<\/i>, vol. 5, pp. 565-568, 2015. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038\/nclimate2635<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n
  6. <\/a>\nR.E. Benestad, \"A mental picture of the greenhouse effect\", Theoretical and Applied Climatology<\/i>, vol. 128, pp. 679-688, 2016. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1007\/s00704-016-1732-y<\/a>\n\n\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I think that the idea of a pause in the global warming has been a red herring ever since it was suggested, and we have commented on this several times here on RC: On how data gaps in some regions (eg. the Arctic) may explain an underestimation of the recent warming. We have also explained […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,9,19,26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-19932","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-instrumental-record","8":"category-oceans","9":"category-rc-forum","10":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19932","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19932"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19932\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20012,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19932\/revisions\/20012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}