Letter | Published:

Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming

Nature Climate Change volume 5, pages 337342 (2015) | Download Citation



Since the end of the twentieth century, global mean surface temperature has not risen as rapidly as predicted by global climate models1,2,3 (GCMs). This discrepancy has become known as the global warming ‘hiatus’ and a variety of mechanisms1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 have been proposed to explain the observed slowdown in warming. Focusing on internally generated variability, we use pre-industrial control simulations from an observationally constrained ensemble of GCMs and a statistical approach to evaluate the expected frequency and characteristics of variability-driven hiatus periods and their likelihood of future continuation. Given an expected forced warming trend of 0.2 K per decade, our constrained ensemble of GCMs implies that the probability of a variability-driven 10-year hiatus is 10%, but less than 1% for a 20-year hiatus. Although the absolute probability of a 20-year hiatus is small, the probability that an existing 15-year hiatus will continue another five years is much higher (up to 25%). Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15 years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until the end of the decade. Following the termination of a variability-driven hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    & Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08706 (2009)

  2. 2.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 741–866 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  3. 3.

    , & Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Clim. Change 3, 767–769 (2013).

  4. 4.

    , & Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1754–1759 (2013).

  5. 5.

    et al. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nature Clim. Change 4, 222–227 (2014).

  6. 6.

    , & The impact of volcanic eruptions in the period 2000–2013 on global mean temperature trends evaluated in the HadGEM2-ES climate model. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 15, 92–96 (2014).

  7. 7.

    , , & Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11790–11793 (2011).

  8. 8.

    et al. Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90, S1–S196 (2009).

  9. 9.

    & Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).

  10. 10.

    , , , & Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360–364 (2011).

  11. 11.

    , , , & Externally forced and internally generated decadal climate variability associated with the interdecadal pacific oscillation. J. Clim. 26, 7298–7310 (2013).

  12. 12.

    et al. Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 999–1004 (2013).

  13. 13.

    et al. Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nature Geosci. 7, 185–189 (2014).

  14. 14.

    , & Reconciling warming trends. Nature Geosci. 7, 158–160 (2014).

  15. 15.

    et al. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science 327, 1219–1223 (2010).

  16. 16.

    et al. The persistently variable background stratospheric aerosol layer and global climate change. Science 333, 866–870 (2011).

  17. 17.

    et al. Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3175–3179 (2013).

  18. 18.

    , & Pause for thought. Nature Clim. Change 4, 154–156 (2014).

  19. 19.

    & Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).

  20. 20.

    & Tracing the upper ocean’s missing heat. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L14610 (2011)

  21. 21.

    , & Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L13707 (2011)

  22. 22.

    & Internal variability of Earth’s energy budget simulated by CMIP5 climate models. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034016 (2014).

  23. 23.

    et al. Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L12807 (2011)

  24. 24.

    , , & Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

  25. 25.

    , & CALIPSO detection of an Asian tropopause aerosol layer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L07804 (2011)

  26. 26.

    & An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth’s Future 1, 19–32 (2013).

  27. 27.

    & Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science 345, 897–903 (2014).

  28. 28.

    , & Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5978–5986 (2014).

  29. 29.

    & Global climate variations connected with sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial pacific ocean for the 1958–73 period. Mon. Weather Rev. 111, 1244–1258 (1983).

  30. 30.

    , , & Evolution of El Niño–Southern Oscillation and global atmospheric surface temperatures. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D8), AAC5-1–AAC5-17 (2002).

  31. 31.

    , , & Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012)

  32. 32.

    , , & Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys. 48, RG4004 (2010).

  33. 33.

    , , & Improvements to NOAA’s historical merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis (1880–2006). J. Clim. 21, 2283–2296 (2008).

  34. 34.

    et al. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108 10.1029/2002JD002670 (2003)

  35. 35.

    et al. Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 1139–1150 (2013).

  36. 36.

    & Automatic time series forecasting: The forecast package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 26, 1–22 (2008).

Download references


We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 1) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. We thank I. Edmond and J. Kettleborough for helping download and archive CMIP5 climate model data and E. Hawkins for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101) and represents a Met Office contribution to the Natural Environment Research Council DEEP-C project NE/K005480/1.

Author information


  1. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK

    • C. D. Roberts
    • , M. D. Palmer
    •  & D. McNeall
  2. University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK

    • M. Collins


  1. Search for C. D. Roberts in:

  2. Search for M. D. Palmer in:

  3. Search for D. McNeall in:

  4. Search for M. Collins in:


C.D.R., M.C. and M.D.P. conceived the study. C.D.R. and D.M. analysed the data and conducted statistical analyses. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and the preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. D. Roberts.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history






Further reading