The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Global Warming 'Hiatus' Never Happened, Scientists Say
Global warming has not slowed. The so-called hiatus remains just that—so-called. The world is warming as predicted and any apparent evidence that it is not doing so is a statistical illusion, according to U.S. scientists.
They report in the journal Climatic Change that they applied “rigorous, comprehensive, statistical analysis” to the global temperature data and came up with this unequivocal conclusion.
And although normally scientists like to spell out the caveats, the margins of error and the uncertainties in their conclusions, the team get to the point with unprecedented firmness.
“We find compelling evidence that recent claims of a ‘hiatus’ in global warming lack sound scientific basis. Our analysis reveals that there is no hiatus in the increase in the global mean temperature, no statistically significant difference in trends, no stalling of the global mean temperature, and no change in year-to-year temperature increases,” they write.
The very-much discussed and so-called pause, hiatus or slowdown in global warming has puzzled climate scientists for years. During the 1990s, annual global temperatures increased palpably, and at a measurable rate. In the early years of this century, the rate of increase began to slow.
It did not, as some have claimed, stop. Thirteen of the hottest 14 years ever have occurred this century, and 2014 was the warmest on record. But the rate of increase, expressed as fractions of a degree Celsius, averaged over the whole planet, certainly seemed to have slowed.
Since the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had continued steadily to increase, as a consequence of the combustion of fossil fuels, the rise in global temperatures should have kept pace, and scientists began to puzzle over the process.
One favorite explanation—and there have been many—was that some long-term natural oceanic or atmospheric cycle had been at play, taking any new atmospheric warmth to the deepest parts of the seas.
Another proposed that an increase in small volcanic eruptions had polluted the atmosphere and imperceptibly blocked incoming sunlight to cool the Earth from above. A third strand of argument proposed that even if there had been a slowdown, there was greater warming to come.
Yet others had begun to wonder about the completeness of the available data. And in June, a team led by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) re-examined the available data, applied corrections they thought necessary, and reported that there had been no slowdown at all.
Now Bala Rajaratnam of Stanford University in California and colleagues have come to the same conclusion. They did some advanced mathematical homework, using both the measurements corrected by the NOAA group and a set of older, uncorrected temperature measurements. They also devised a new statistical framework to apply to them.
“By using both datasets, nobody can claim that we made up a new statistical technique in order to get a certain result,” said Dr Rajaratnam. “We saw there was a debate in the scientific community about the global warming hiatus, and we realised that the assumptions of classical statistical tools being used were not appropriate and thus could not give reliable answers.”
Collected measurements of any kind, made at different times with different techniques, tell scientists nothing: they must use statistical tools to eliminate possible bias, smooth other distortions and allow for human error. So all debate about climate change has, at bottom, been about how to interpret information.
The Stanford team’s approach involved thinking again about how to make sense of temperature readings collected unevenly from ocean and surface atmospheric temperatures, all of them influenced by chaotic weather systems, seasonal variations and long-term natural cycles.
They applied another approach that could equally be used with climate data or stock market prices, and they report that their statistical confidence in their conclusions is 100 times stronger than what was reported by the NOAA group. Once this approach was applied, the apparent alteration in the rate of warming disappeared.
“Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend. Think of the U.S. stock market. There have been bull markets and bear markets but overall it has grown a lot over the past century,” said Noah Diffenbaugh of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford.
“What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as abnormal.”
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.