We’re back here again, once more talking about global warming. While all scientific empirical data shows that global warming is a real thing, about 40% of our countrymen refuse to acknowledge it. But that’s not the issue today. After contenders finally settled down last year, a new study might have proof that would get them arguing again. Let’s look into this decade old controversy, and see just what the deal is with the global warming hiatus.
Before we get started on the separate points of view regarding the issue, let’s get you up to speed with what you’ve been missing out on. The so-called global warming hiatus refers to the observation that global warming has been slowing down for the past 15 years. It’s not stopping, by any means, but some claim that it might in fact be slowing down a bit.
Finally ending the seemingly endless blog posts and arguments between scientists and skeptics, a team of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at temperature records and showed that global warming hasn’t actually slowed down since 2000. This was happening last summer.
Now, however, a different group of quite prominent scientists performed their own study. They claim that global warming did in fact slow down, but that there’s no need for arguing or worrying about the consequences of admitting that, mostly because it’s pretty much irrelevant.
Both sides have accurate claims for the other side’s improper methodology, with NOAA criticizing the new study’s comparison of a 15 year stretch of time to a 48 year stretch, while the new group scolded NOAA for publishing manipulated data just to keep their premise and not publish something they might regret. Without having all the facts, it’s difficult to assign blame here.
The main issue here is that the argument is pointless, as both sides on one thing – whether the hiatus happened or not, it’s over now, and it didn’t really have any over-all effect on global warming. Next came an attempt to figure out the reasons behind the hiatus.
Since the hiatus would suggest that global warming predictive models may occasionally get it wrong, researchers would need additional information to feed the machine in order to come up with more accurate predictions. So, here are a few possible explanations the team came up with.
One of the most plausible reasons is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This PDO is a naturally occurring variation in the climate system caused by a cycle of heat the Pacific goes through every decade or so. The waters go from warmer to hotter over long stretches of time, and the magnitude of the ocean does have its impact on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Other plausible explanations would include volcano eruptions, tectonic plate shifts, and naturally occurring cooling aerosols. If the scientists would stop arguing among themselves about something irrelevant, maybe they could soon input the new data into the models and check the new accuracy of the new predictions.
Image source: Pixabay