- They found that the data analysis carried out by Karl and coworkers, as well as by other groups, showed that a “warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop’.” (Emphases added) That is, contrary to Rep. Smith, this new work does not “confirm the halt in global warming.” (Emphasis added)
- Referring to the work of Karl and coworkers, Fyfe and coworkers write “[r]ecent research that has identified and corrected the errors and inhomogeneities in the surface air temperature record is of high scientific value.” This appreciation of the work of Karl and coworkers contradicts Rep. Smith when he dismisses the validity of their work.
- Fyfe and coworkers write that the issue of “[h]ow unusual a period of reduced warming is, depends strongly on its length.” The actual rates of warming are highly sensitive to the choices made for the length of time considered, and for the starting points and end points of the warming interval.
- Fyfe and coworkers call the recent period, 2001-2014, a “slowdown” largely because the observed temperature trends for this period fall below modeled predictions for the period made by extending assumptions made for earlier decades into the recent period.
- The authors point out that man-made contributions to warming did not cease during the slowdown. Rather they ascribe the slowdown largely to internal variations in factors that affect climate, including the large contribution arising from the operation of the cyclical decades-long Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) (as well as certain other variations). The IPO was in its thermally negative phase during the slowdown period. This was sufficient to counterbalance part of the man-made warming always present. Being cyclical, when the IPO reenters its positive phase, warming from the IPO will supplement man-made warming, leading to stronger increases in global average surface temperatures once again.
© 2016 Henry Auer