Where Has Global Warming Gone?

Dec 19, 2014 Ka-Kit Tung

For the last 15 years, according to the conventional way of measuring global warming, the planet does not seem to have become any hotter. But the reason is not that our greenhouse-gas emissions are no longer changing the earth’s climate, it is that surface temperature is a poor measure of human-induced warming.

SEATTLE – For the last quarter of the twentieth century, the average temperature at the surface of the earth edged inexorably upward. Then, to the surprise even of scientists, it stopped. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere continued to rise; indeed, it is higher today than it has been for centuries. And yet, for the last 15 years, according to the conventional way of measuring global warming, the planet does not seem to have become any hotter.

What explains this unexpected turn of events, and what does it mean for future climate policy?

The pause in the rise of surface temperatures is real. It can be observed in surveys of the surface of the sea and in satellite measurements of the troposphere. But the reason it has occurred is not that our greenhouse-gas emissions are no longer changing the earth’s climate; it is that surface temperature is a poor metric for human-induced warming. Indeed, what scientists have figured out is that, instead of warming the surface, the excess heat that is being generated has gone to the deeper oceans.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 in all 4 Comments on this article

Dallas Weaver, Ph.D. Dec 25, 2014

The statement: "Over longer periods, however, the risk that the heat currently stored in the deep ocean will resurface is remote" is totally unsupported and unsupportable.

As a professor of Applied Mathematics, he knows that 3,000 recent measurements, with almost no historical reference, is not adequate for creating a detailed model of this ocean storage of excess heat energy. These satellite based automated measurement diving drifters are very new and very few.

He also knows that the heat capacity (ability to store heat) of a sq. Meter of water 3000 meters deep is about 1000 times that of the air above that sq meter. He know that means that the net heat energy required to raise the air temperature 1ºC would only heat that 3,000 meter deep water column 0.001ºC, which is a smaller change than can normally be measured, without traceable standards. Of course this also means that most of the old ocean data is worthless, for this purpose (not enough temperature accuracy).

He also know that the fluid dynamics of the ocean are described by the same equations (Navier–Stokes equations) as used for describing weather and climate, but with far less data on the "starting points" and "boundary conditions" required for solutions or simulations. This makes the ocean models worse that the climate models.

More importantly, he also know that any net energy stored in the ocean can't leave the planet except by radiation from the planet surface or atmosphere and for it to leave, that means that the surface/atmosphere must be higher temperature and/or higher emissivities. It all goes back to the atmospheric/surface radiation properties in the climate models. Reality is just putting a big storage capacity in the systems, but not changing the average net energy input/output relationships. That changes timing, but not amounts.

This articles seems to be more political opinion than a science based analysis. The delay before "paying" the cost of that extra "forced" energy input can easily be decades, but that energy doesn't go away.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stavros Antonopoulos Dec 21, 2014

I would have liked this article more if it accounted for the consequences of the heating of the oceans firstly on biodiversity secondly on the emission of methane stored in the under oceans that previously had a semi permanent or permanent ice cover. These consequnces are both serious and far reaching. The changes in the macroecosystem are too complex to be summed up by a single indicator such as surface temperatures. The author is right on that. But seeing climate change as a process of discrete changes is dismissive and simplistic. Scientists should inform and convince the general public and policy makers that Climate change should be seen as a continuous process where there are no "pause" or "start" buttons. And in that effort, articles such as this one should try to take account of as many variables as possible.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Onanist Misanthrope Dec 20, 2014

The opening statement is a little muddle headed. If tomorrow was warmer than today, would you say winter was over or there was a "pause" in winter ? No, of course not and that's why you can't say there is a pause, it would be much like saying there is a "pause" in winter, it just makes no sense . We know the anthropogenic emissions are causing more warming, so we know it will get hotter, so please stop using "pause" as a thing

Here's an article to explain why

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Derrick Baragwanath Dec 20, 2014

Global warming may be open to challenge, but carbon dioxide expulsion from fossil fuels and oxygen depletion from deforestation are not. Planet earth has a problem and a slow down in various negative trends like global warming doesn't change what is going on. Sometimes the overall arguments get lost in minutia, but you don't have to be rocket scientist to recognize increased carbon dioxide expulsion and decreased oxygen production will most likely not be good for humankind.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/qWCJtWv

Cookies and Privacy

Where Has Global Warming Gone?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Where Has Global Warming Gone?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification