In June, scientists with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a major article that measures the rate of global warming in light of this recent heat. The article uses a suite of new sources on land and across the oceans to provide a comprehensive temperature reconstruction from 1880 to the present. Many of these sources provide meteorological data of unprecedented accuracy. The new temperature reconstruction includes especially substantial corrections to previous global sea surface temperature statistics from the years 1880 to 1940. It also makes minor adjustments to temperature reconstructions of the last twenty years. In fact, using their new data, the NOAA scientists conclude that global temperatures have increased steady since 1950. This is a major finding that contradicts the popular idea of a “pause” or “hiatus” in recent warming.
According to climatologist Gavin Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “the fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not . . . underlines how fragile a concept [the pause] was in the first place.” So how did that pause become such an influential idea? Given the forces behind record-setting temperatures this year, it is not surprising that the answer must begin with another major El Niño, eighteen years ago.
Global warming sceptics quickly sought to popularize the concept. Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway recently chronicled how some activist scientists have, for decades, derailed the public discourse on science that appears to challenge the unfettered workings of the free market. They tried to undermine, for example, science that links cigarette smoke to lung cancer, and chlorofluorocarbons to the Ozone Hole. They lost those battles, but found greater success in their fight against climate science. At every step, they have deployed the weapon of doubt. If the science that supports regulation can be made to sound uncertain, it can hardly serve as a foundation for government policy.
Already in 2006, palaeontologist Robert Carter, for instance, insisted that temperatures had remained steady for eight years, since 1998. In his telling, the science behind global warming appeared anything but settled. Carter, a well-known denier of anthropogenic warming, co-authored a notorious paper in 2009, which argued that El Niño events account for most of the changes in global temperature over the past fifty years. Three years later, Carter admitted that he received a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute, an influential organization committed to denying global warming. Regardless, Carter made an error that is also committed by better-intentioned sceptics of anthropogenic climate change. He identified a climatic trend by cherry picking a past date - an abnormally warm year - that allowed him to argue for recent cooling.
Even many scientists who agree with the scholarly consensus on global warming believed that the steady rise in Earth’s temperature had slowed - but not stopped - since 1998. As reported on this website, most of their research tied this supposed slowdown to one of two sets of variables. Some scientists argued that entirely natural causes had temporarily reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. For example, as I reported on this website, one influential article blamed a recent spate of small volcanic eruptions. Other scientists more persuasively concluded that different parts of the climate system appeared to absorb more heat than had been thought possible. The oceans were widely cited as the destination for warmth that might otherwise have reached our atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the so-called “pause” in global warming barely registered in the public consciousness until early 2013. In January of that year, an article by lead author James Hansen – perhaps the most responsible and vocal voice in global warming scholarship – began with alarming news. In 2012, it announced, temperatures the world over had been 0.56 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 base average. This was in spite of a La Niña that had chilled the waters of the equatorial Pacific, and therefore had the opposite effect on global temperatures of an El Niño.
Unfortunately, Hansen’s report contained a misleading and ultimately disastrous headline. Under “Global Warming Standstill,” the report noted that the five-year running mean of global temperature “has been flat for the past decade,” despite a steady (if slowing) increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The report speculated about possible reasons, but concluded that the most likely culprit was probably El Niño conditions early in the period, followed by La Niña episodes in more recent years. In years less troubled by these conditions, temperatures continued to rise at the rate they had in the previous three decades.
The Economist article provided an opening for sceptics of climate change to push the narrative of the unexplained pause. Meanwhile, as chronicled by Chris Mooney, the IPCC prepared to release its fifth assessment report. In August, a leaked draft was released to the press. It contained descriptions of the pause that, when read in isolation, appeared to confirm the Economist article. According to one of the report’s lead authors, Dennis Hartmann of the University of Washington, public pressure convinced the scientists that they “had to say something” about the pause. They were hesitant, because the fifteen years between 1998 and 2013 were too short to reliably reflect a climatic trend. Yet before they had finalized their interpretation of the pause, it reached journalists who were only too eager to sacrifice scientific accuracy for sensationalistic headlines.
Not all proponents of the pause were scientifically illiterate, or associated with global warming denial. For example, in September 2013, Berkeley physicist and converted climate sceptic Richard Muller announced that the “global warming crowd has a problem,” because, “despite a steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the planet’s average surface temperature has remained pretty much the same for the last 15 years.” Muller argued that he had more or less predicated this pause back in 2004. It was in a critique of the so-called “hockey stick” graph that famously illustrated global warming (and has been recently vindicated). In 2004, Muller warned that, were the graph taken seriously, many would see inevitable, natural variations in temperature as undermining the case for anthropogenic climate change. In 2013, it seemed that Muller might be right.
Then, in late September, the IPCC finally released its completed fifth assessment report. As I described on this website, the report acknowledged a slight slowdown in the rate of global warming from 1998 to 2012. However, it weakened the previous draft’s description of a “pause” or “hiatus.” It confirmed that every decade in the past thirty years had been successively warmer than any previously recorded decade. As I wrote in 2013, it also explained that “the presence of short-term fluctuations in climate does not throw into doubt the existence of long-term climatic trends.” As one might expect, many sceptics met the final report with derision.