Case against climate change discredited by study
A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War.
Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.
Sceptics have argued it supports the idea that rising temperatures have more to do with increased solar activity – sunspots – than increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide exacerbating the greenhouse effect.
However, an international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.
The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.
The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.
Taking into account the difference in the way of measuring sea-surface temperatures, and the sudden increase in the proportion of British ships taking the measurements after the war, the result was an artificial lowering of the global average temperature by about 0.2C, said Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"It occurred in the period of the 1940s when the number of observations of sea-surface temperature were markedly fewer than either before or after that period and most of the measurements were made by British and American ships. This made the apparent anomaly more pronounced," Professor Jones said.
The study, published in the journal Nature, found that the global average temperatures in the late 1940s stayed roughly the same rather than falling. David Thompson of Colorado State University, the team's leader, said a drop was, in effect, an artefact rather than a real observation.
"I was surprised to see the drop so clearly in the filtered data, and working in partnership with others, realised it couldn't be natural," Dr Thompson said.
Although the initial drop was significant, it did not last. By the 1960s, many other nations began taking ship-borne measurements of ocean temperature, mini-mising the discrepancy.
Professor Jones said that the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide.
"This finding supports the sulphates argument, because it was bit hard to explain how they could cause the period of cooling from 1945, when industrial production was still relatively low," Professor Jones said.
A similar problem could be occurring now with the move from ship-borne measurements to those from unmanned buoys, which tend to produce slightly lower records. This could explain why global average temperatures in recent years have levelled off.
Comments
Share your thoughts and debate the big issues
Please be respectful when making a comment and adhere to our Community Guidelines.
You can find our Community Guidelines in full here.
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Newest first
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Oldest first
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Most liked
{{/moreThanOne}}Please be respectful when making a comment and adhere to our Community Guidelines.
You can find our Community Guidelines in full here.
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Newest first
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Oldest first
- -1) ? 'active' : ''">
Most liked
{{/moreThanOne_p}}Follow comments
Vote
Report Comment
Subscribe to Independent Premium to debate the big issues
Want to discuss real-world problems, be involved in the most engaging discussions and hear from the journalists? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Already registered? Log inReport Comment
Delete Comment
About The Independent commenting
Independent Premium Comments can be posted by members of our membership scheme, Independent Premium. It allows our most engaged readers to debate the big issues, share their own experiences, discuss real-world solutions, and more. Our journalists will try to respond by joining the threads when they can to create a true meeting of independent Premium. The most insightful comments on all subjects will be published daily in dedicated articles. You can also choose to be emailed when someone replies to your comment.
The existing Open Comments threads will continue to exist for those who do not subscribe to Independent Premium. Due to the sheer scale of this comment community, we are not able to give each post the same level of attention, but we have preserved this area in the interests of open debate. Please continue to respect all commenters and create constructive debates.