New Study May Resolve Long-Standing Global Warming Debate

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A disparity between temperature trends on the earth¿s surface and in the troposphere, the level of the atmosphere where most weather takes place, has long fueled debate over climate change. Theoretically, if global warming is indeed happening, the troposphere should be heating up at least as fast as the earth¿s surface is. Yet temperature data obtained with devices called microwave sounding units (MSUs) over the past 25 years have consistently suggested little if any tropospheric warming. Some climate scientists have therefore argued that global warming models are flawed. New research suggests that the error lies not in the models but rather in the temperature readings themselves.

Different MSU channels measure radiation emitted in distinct frequency ranges that correspond to different levels of the earth¿s atmosphere. Researchers knew that channel 2, which provides data on the troposphere, is strongly influenced by the cooling effects of the overlying stratosphere, but they had not succeeded in developing an accurate adjustment for this interference. University of Washington atmospheric scientist Qiang Fu and his colleagues used a second channel, sensitive almost exclusively to the stratosphere, to quantify this layer¿s exact contribution to channel 2 readings. After reanalyzing data collected between 1979 and 2001, the team found that the troposphere¿s temperature has risen by about two tenths of a degree Celsius (almost one third of a degree Fahrenheit) each decade, bringing it in line with the surface trend.

Fu concludes that the results of the study, published today in the journal Nature, demonstrate that "satellite measurements cannot be used to argue that global warming is not happening." He notes: "I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well." --Alla Katsnelson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe