Report

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

+ See all authors and affiliations

Science  26 Jun 2015:
Vol. 348, Issue 6242, pp. 1469-1472
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632

You are currently viewing the figures only.

View Full Text
  1. Fig. 1 Effect of new analysis on global surface temperature trends for several periods.

    Temperature trends are shown for data with the “new” analysis (squares) and “old” analysis (circles) for several periods of interest. Also indicated are global values calculated with the new corrections and the polar interpolation method (triangles). Consistent with the IPCC report (1), the error bars represent the 90% confidence intervals (CIs). The additional error associated with uncertainty of our corrections extends the 90% CI and is depicted with a horizontal dash. (A and B) The base period (1951–2012) and “hiatus” period used in IPCC (1). (C) An alternate base period, the second half of the 20th century. (D) The 21st century through 2014. (E) 1998 (a strong El Niño year) through the 21st century. Source data are provided in table S1.

  2. Fig. 2 Global (land and ocean) surface temperature anomaly time series with new analysis, old analysis, and with and without time-dependent bias corrections.

    (A) The new analysis (solid black) compared with the old analysis (red). (B) The new analysis (solid black) versus no corrections for time-dependent biases (blue).

  3. Fig. 3 Latitudinal profiles of surface temperature trends.

    Zonal mean trends and statistical uncertainty of the trend estimates for global, ocean, and land surface temperature, averaged in 30° latitudinal belts, for the second half of the 20th century (dashed) compared with the past 15 years (solid). Trends are cosine-weighted within latitude belts, and the vertical axis is on a sine scale so as to reflect the proportional surface area of the latitude bands. Only the uncertainty related to the trend estimates is provided because zonal standard errors of estimate are not available in contrast to the global averages.

Related Content