New paper shows there was a global warming hiatus this century

volcanic eruptionResearchers have published a new paper this week in the journal Nature Climate Change that acknowledges there has been a global warming slowdown from 2000-2014. Their research shows a hiatus did indeed occur and continued into the 21st century, contradicting another study last June that said the hiatus was just an artifact that “vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.” This is not the first time activists have tried to hide the hiatus by using dodgy methods.

This new paper shows a global warming slowdown or hiatus, the authors write, which has been “characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations.” They add, “The evidence presented [in this paper] contradicts these claims.” Ouch.

In this new paper, the authors show there is a “mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” Fyfe prefers the term slowdown over hiatus and adds the usual caveats lest he be taken away from the global warming cash cow: it in no way undermines “global warming theory.”

Gavin Schmidt, a climate activist and a director at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said it’s a “tired discussion and nothing more than academic bickering.” He adds, “A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Snarking aside, this new paper says that natural variability (like volcanic eruptions, solar radiance, ocean heat uptake, etc…) are important elements in evaluating our climate. As such, they should be factored in when trying to interpret the temperature record and the millions of variables that affect our climate.

Karl Thomas, the lead author of the so-called “pause bustingstudy says it’s “important to investigate how short-term effects might impact decadal trends, but says that these short term trends do not necessarily elucidate the long-term effects of rising greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

Fyfe and his colleagues argue that “Karl’s approach was biased” because of a flat temperature pause between the 1950s and 1970s. Fryfe says that his research took into account events that affect decadal temperature trends such as volcanic eruptions, which dampen solar radiation. As an example, climate models underestimate volcanic eruptions and how they impact how much solar radiation hits the planet, specifically at the start of the 21st century.

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s research helps put “twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.” Solomon says, “It’s important to explain that. As scientists, we are curious about every bump and wiggle in that curve.”

Read rest…

Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    A shocking revelation , there are still real
    scientists out there that stick to the scientific method, are curious , and are not afraid to say no to the scary global warming cool aid .
    Good on them ,keep that value system in place because the world needs you and not the bunch of bought charlatans who’s time as come and gone .

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    This group of alarmists have taken the first small step in the standard scientific process. They have admitted that the theory and data do not match. Now the next step is to modify the theory to match the data.

    They acknowledge the need for the models to include more factors such as changing solar radiation. What they really need to do is look at the positive feed back factors in the models. If I understand things correctly, eliminating these feed back factors would cause the models to match observed data more closely. Without the positive feed back the models also would no longer predict disastrous warming. With a 1.5 trillion world wide climate change industry depending on the doom and gloom predictions, that would be a problem.

    Another thing the authors did was say the “short term” hiatus does not mean there isn’t a long term warming trend measured in decades. Yet, the “short term” hiatus is almost as long as the last warming period blamed on man.

Comments are closed