Why has global warming stalled?

 
Sunrise over the ocean Solar energy is absorbed by the oceans

With Britain's heatwave reaching a peak, there could be no better moment to talk about why global warming has slowed to a standstill.

It reminds me of reporting on a drought a few years ago: while filming interviews with people about the impact, the heavens opened and rainwater was soon flowing down my neck.

So as journalists were invited to the Science Media Centre in London to hear how the worldwide rise in temperatures has stalled, the mercury shot up as if on cue to record the hottest day of the year so far.

In many ways, this event was long overdue: climate sceptics have for years pointed out that the world is not warming as rapidly as once forecast.

A lot depends on how you do the measurements, of course.

Start Quote

There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.”

End Quote

Each of the last few decades has been warmer than the last. But start your graph in 1998 - which happened to be an exceptionally warm year - and there hasn't been much global warming at all.

Gradually the words 'pause' and 'hiatus' which first featured in the blogs have crossed to the media and then to the scientists professionally engaged in researching the global climate.

The headline - which the scientists will not thank me for - is that no one is really sure why the rate of warming has stumbled.

No smoking gun

There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.

Industrial scene Industrialisation may lead to a drop in global temperatures in the 1940s

Professor Piers Forster of Leeds University has tried to quantify the different factors involved - what's known as their "radiative forcing".

Between 1998-2012, he reckons, manmade greenhouse gases were still the biggest influence, causing warming of 0.48 of a Watt per square metre (a key measure of energy flows to and from the planet).

At the same, he estimates, two other natural influences might have led to some cooling: a relatively quiet Sun might have been responsible for a reduction of 0.16 of a Watt/sq m and volcanic eruptions another 0.06 Watt/sq m.

A big unknown is the effect of aerosols - tiny particles released by industrial pollution which could cause a further cooling effect.

It is thought that the world's massive industrialisation after World War Two contributed to a slight drop in global temperatures in the late 1940s.

But the key factor - according to all the speakers at the briefing - is that whatever solar energy is making it through to the surface, much is being absorbed by the hidden depths of the oceans.

The Argo network of automated monitors has been deployed since 2005 to measure the waters as deep as 1,800m. This isn't a very long period but the data are apparently showing some warming - even in this short time frame.

And readings from satellites since 2000 show how much energy is arriving at the planet, and how much is leaving, so if the energy left behind is not manifesting itself in rising surface temperatures, then it must be going somewhere - and the deep ocean is the most plausible explanation.

Pauses expected

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear away but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.

Arctic sea ice Arctic sea ice levels have fallen

Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

Bad maths

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.

 
David Shukman Article written by David Shukman David Shukman Science editor

Deep sea mining licences issued

The UN's seabed authority issues exploration licences that accelerate a search for valuable minerals on the ocean floor.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 939.

    927 Ian

    The Southern Ocean and Antarctica are warming , while Winter Antarctic ice extent is increasing.

    Your suggestion about cold seas does not match the temperature data.

    The increased extent may be due to a combination of two changes in Antarctic conditions.

    Reduced salinity is allowing ice to form at a higher temperature.

    It is then spread further by stronger winds.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 938.

    @870 FisherOfTruth: Uhhh, no it won't. As the temperature rises, you initially have outgassing, the boiling off of dissolved gasses. This removes heat from the system, causing non-linearity. As the temperature continues to increase, any liquids dissolved with a boiling point below that of water will fractionally distill. This will cause temperature rise to temporarily cease before continuing.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 937.

    I dont know if global warming is happening

    But I'd rather be cautious over something so potentially serious than completely deny any possibility of it

    You have to wonder about the motives of people who are so convinced that it doesnt exist - as It may be too late by the time undeniable proof is available

    Unfortunately, some countries are taking us to the answer quickly whether we like it or not

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 936.

    The odd thing is with most impending disasters when it seems it's possibly over or at least not as bad as we thought most people would celebrate. Instead I see people falling over themselves trying to look for reasons it's still going to happen, or even it's happening already. This is not normal rational behaviour, in the last 20 years plenty of new data has shown it is unlikely.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 935.

    If ever there was a record for Strawmen arguments, this thread has to be number one contender.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 934.

    "A history of Solar Activity Over Millennia" by I.G. Usoskin points to the sun as primary cause of global warming and cooling periods as similar warming periods have occured in the past without significant anthropogenic CO2.
    It's a money making scam,. if the government were really scared they would have switched to Thorium(LFTR) instead of unreliable wind which leave us dependent on fossil fuels.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 933.

    "Each of the last few decades has been warmer than the last. But start your graph in 1998 - which happened to be an exceptionally warm year - and there hasn't been much global warming at all."

    It's a straw man, set up so that flat-earthers can carry on clutching at straws in the face of rising global mean temperature. Yes, global mean temperature is still rising.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 932.

    922. Kevin MacDonald

    I have re-read your post 922 and I think I understand it now. Sorry.
    You are saying YOU, the warmists got your figure for sensitivity from empirical data, not models.
    The people I mentioned calculate and publish. What are you saying they also do?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 931.

    SHOCKING misunderstanding of physics and chaos in this article and comments.

    Melting sea ice will slow GW but is A Bad Thing.

    Global dimming was recognised for over a decade. However, this in itself is also A Bad Thing.

    Chaotic systems (e.g. Environment) are often unpredictable in the short term, but long-term trends are easier.

    GW IS an issue. Naysayers just use bad science to deny it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 930.

    922. Kevin MacDonald
    The people I mentioned, all eminent Professors and heads of university faculties, do NOT base their calculations of climate sensitivity on "models".
    That is precisely what they do NOT do. They calculate from empirical, in the field measurements from satellites and weather balloons.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 929.

    ....and IF there is this nasty global warming and it kills off us humans; Then so what? Sine our arrival we have done nothing but row, fight, make up gods and think we going on some sort of Walt Dysney trip after we die!
    Anyway I like it hot!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 928.

    Anent the statement by Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, I recall reading somewhere, not so long back, that no model had come up with a pause as long as 20 years, and I do not remember seeing such pauses displayed in the projected temperature graphs generated by the models.
    It would be interesting to know which models generate these pauses, and how often.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 927.

    Please see current sea ice data link below.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    Looks like a good year for cold seas!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 926.

    A complex subject with so many variables but for some the practical consequences are inescapable. Arctic ice area is changing rapidly; Himalayan/Alpine glaciers are retreating. The former glacial changes threaten massive changes to the eco-systems.
    GW will entail colder conditions for some, GB inparticular if the Gulf Stream moves west.
    Russian methane for free after permafrost melt?
    Jet stream?

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 925.

    919. seasambo
    Maybe you didn`t quite understand the first part of 903.
    Nobody, not even us sceptics, is disputing that CO2 is a GG.
    The IPCC themselves say, in AR4 2007, that it, CO2, will cause about 1.2 deg C of warming. That`s right, 1.2deg C. no more.
    Any more than this that they predict is, they say, going to be caused by WATER VAPOUR,
    Which is the Earth`s MAIN greenhouse gas.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 924.

    "A long long time ago, the earth was MUCH HOTTER than it is today.
    There were NO ice caps. But here we are! Course, NO media then!"

    Yes and guess what...so was CO2 in the atmosphere! And there was no fossil fuel burning then...considering that was when they were being created! How ironic...

    There were however, vast tracts of forest that would burn uncontrolled releasing CO2........

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 923.

    911.Nick
    "I've never heard a climate scientist answer this: How could the Vikings grow crops like Barley for hundreds of years up to around 1400AD in Greenland which is impossible now? How come, in the dark ages there were flourishing vineyards in Scotland?"

    Try looking up regional (northern hemisphere) climate variation as apposed to GLOBAL climate variation!!!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 922.

    @860,ThankyouandGoodbye

    "Are Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, James Lovelock, Vincent Courtillot, I could go on, deeply ignorant too?"

    If they think our understanding of climate sensitivity is largely based on model output, yes.

    "Shukman was reporting, on the debate over the magnitude and indeed sign, of the sensitivity"

    Which shouldn't require misrepresenting the models scope.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 921.

    Just a little fun on the Guardian Enviro blogger supposedly working for 'Big Oil'

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 920.

    Climate Change and Terrorism are the NEW religion.
    Religion is waning in its power to control the western masses; we used to fear an eternity in hell which kept us compliant.
    Now we fear death at the hands of a terrorist or drowning as sea levels rise.
    The reality is that we need to be controlled; the real danger we face is from those who desire to wield that control!

 

Page 1 of 47

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.