Many climate change deniers rely on a so-called "hiatus" in global warming over the last few decades. Well new research from NOAA challenges that there has been a hiatus at all:
Published Online June 4 2015
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
REPORT
CLIMATE CHANGE
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1
- Author Affiliations
1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.
?*Corresponding author. E-mail: thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov
ABSTRACT
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
Here's their conclusion:
Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a
time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic
global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable
with the trend over the period 2000-2014
(0.116°C dec−1). Even starting a trend calculation with 1998,
the extremely warm El Niño year that is often used as the
beginning of the “hiatus”, our global temperature trend
(1998-2014) is 0.106°C dec−1 – and we know that is an underestimate
due to incomplete coverage over the Arctic. Indeed,
based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s (1) statement of
two years ago – that the global surface temperature “has
shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past
15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years” – is no longer
valid.
You can see the full text of this article here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/...