Can you see a pause in the warming of the planet?
The World Meteorological Organisation have just released the following press release:
The year 2013 was among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest year, with a global land and ocean surface temperature that was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the most recent 2001–2010 decadal average.
Thirteen of the 14 warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century. The warmest years on record are 2010 and 2005, with global temperatures about 0.55 °C above the long-term average, followed by 1998, which also had an exceptionally strong El Niño event.
At this point many commentators, scientists and bloggers will say “Well look at that. We told you the planet is warming.” Of course those that deny climate change will mutter about conspiracies, the “pause in warming” and such nonsense.
But let us move well beyond that conversation, cherry picking of facts and the finger-pointing that takes place every time a press release such as this comes out.
When I look at this graph I see a planetary and civilisational emergency. I see a looming catastrophe if we don’t begin advanced planning.
What I see is the urgent need to examine how we adapt to a changed climate.
Many hard decisions are before us.
Time to consider our options.
Watching the Deniers 
I have often wondered what it would take to convince those people who believe the world is not warming.
If 2015 were the hottest year on record? That wouldn’t convince them because many would say the data was faked.
Perhaps a virtually ice free Arctic in September 2017? But then some will say it was virtually ice free in the 1930’s or some other period in the past where we didn’t have satellite records.
Some people will be convinced by this sort of occurrence, but many will just explain them away just as they explain the things that have already happened.
And little effective action will be taken.
Unfortunately nothing will change the minds of committed denialists. For them, evidence does not supersede ideology.
What you guys say is true.
I think we continue efforts to educate the public and counter the deniers.
But the conversation we must have *now* is what it would take to steward our civilisation through the next 50-100 years (and even then beyond that).
Time to think big. We’re not going to win this by carefully crafted press releases.
We need to inspire and motivate the next generation of leaders.
How about just getting the science right?
Do you mean “getting any science”. The denial industry has spent 600 million in the past 5 years, but has yet to produce peer-reviewed research that rebuts the consensus.
There sure is a pause; since last week there has been no warming in Perth. I was expecting another heatwave _ it didn’t happen. Actually it’s cooling: two days ago it was 37°C and for Saturday they’re predicting 31°C. What better proof is there that global warming is a hoax?
Dang it! Your right!
Hi WTD, why the average from 1961-1990 as the point of comparison? Wouldn’t 1850-1900 provide a better baseline of a standard point closer to the industrial revolution(s) and commencement of significant burning of fossil fuels. JB
In climate modelling or analysis a 30 year period is referred to as a “climate normal” – it is used as a reference value for comparative periods. How do we know what is “normal” or “abnormal”? The climate normal is a useful point of comparison. 30 year periods are sufficiently long enough to include all the usual variations of climate/weather.
So why not just look at a data-set post 1850?
What matters is the *rate* of warming (i.e. speed). Is the warming natural or anthropogenic in origin? How to different time periods compare? Note that 13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred in the last 14 years.
In the UK we have just had the wettest January on record and I am sure you have all seen the damage being done in the south west by the storms. It seems that every month that passes we have “The (insert superlative of choice) on record”
FYI – Some quotes in USA news this week from prominent people who agree that there is a pause and that the pause continued in 2013. Are they deniers?
“The trends over the last 10 to 15 years compared to the trends before do appear to be lower than they were,” Gavin Schmidt, climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told reporters.
According to NASA, 2013 was tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year on record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ranks 2013 as the fourth warmest year on record, tying with 2003.
“In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues,” wrote David Whitehouse, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics and was the BBC’s science editor. “Statistically speaking there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period.”
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/index.html#.UvU4EfmSySp
and you put up a quote out of context ? go away
here is a surprise for you, try harder next time
a member of the flat temperature brigade
David Whitehouse, of the secretly funded GWPF? Credibility negative.
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-whitehouse
Once and for all Sundance – you doe-eyed, dough-brained, doh!-getting duffus – there is no fucking hiatus in the progress of global warming:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/pacific_trade_winds_stall_global_surface_warming_for_now-127569
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
You are obviously profoundly disabled when it comes to understanding even the most basic of scientific facts and principles, so let me give you an analogy…
There’s a theatre filling with people (global warming), who have been disproportionately heading for the gallery seats (increasing land temperature). Then, an usher (climate-affecting phenomenon, Pacific trade winds as it turns out) decides to shunt the the bulk of the influx to the stalls (ocean) and the movement to the gallery slows to a trickle (hiatus!!1!11eleventy-one!) . Has the increase in the total number of people in theatre (global warming) stopped? No. Will the filling of the gallery (increasing land temperature) continue when the usher shifts the flow again? Yes.
For laughs, imagine that the theatre was already filled when this usher started to let this new crowd in. Do you imagine that things will go well in the near future, even though the gallery of the theatre is currently enjoying a “hiatus”?
And a clue on “statistically speaking”:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/much-to-dismay-of-christopher-monckton.html?showComment=1392005150654#c6346795092270407741
In 2006 it was reported that global warming was causing the slowdown, that is, the people in the theatre were the pacific trade winds and that the ushers were global warming. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml “Slowdown in Tropical Pacific Flow Pinned on Climate Change”.
So which is it??
Regardless, thanks to the climate change to date, Victoria is now a dirty dust bowl and the sooner we abandon here the better. Why talk about the future when Victoria no longer has any?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/on-a-weakening-of-the-walker-circulation/comment-page-1/
june 2006
Most press reports summarized this result as a “weakening of the Trade Winds” in response to global warming. As a description, that’s not too bad, given that the indicated trend in the Walker circulation does indeed lead to a weakening of the Trades over most of the Pacific. However, the Trade Winds are primarily caused by the Hadley circulation, and are only modulated by the Walker circulation, so it is more precise to think of this result as indicating a change in strength of the Walker circulation.
Please post a link to the peer-reviewed article that supports your assertion. Oh….I forgot, there is no such peer-reviewed support — just billboards featuring the Unabomber and millions going to support non-scientist politicians on the Koch Bros. payroll.
Please cite the peer reviewed research that draws the conclusion you,assert.
Let the fires eliminate Hazelwood and all other coal fired power stations. Yes, there will be deaths in the short term from heat exhaustion as there won’t be any air conditioning and hospitals won’t function. However this is a small price to pay when considering the long term impacts of climate change. We need to act now and immediately. Like a junkie we’ll suffer withdrawal symptoms but in the long run we’ll be cured of our CO2 disease.
“Of course those that deny climate change will mutter about conspiracies, the “pause in warming” and such nonsense.”
You mean conspiracies like “deniers are funded by Big Oil Money”? Also, why exactly is “pause in warming” nonsense? There have been numerous peer-reviewed papers published and theories advanced offering explanations for the “pause in warming” – are you saying it isn’t real? Even the IPCC says that it is.
Take a look at this. If you can’t be bothered to read the whole paper than there is a good summary here.
Because it only looks at one particular set of data. The overall trend is for continued warming. It’s like sticking your hands in your food freezer and deciding on the basis of how cold it is, that your house isn’t hot enough.
Please cite the peer-reviewed studies that draw conclusions about the alleged pause.
Peer-reviewed article that details the dark money funding of climate change denial:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/23/dark-money-feeding-climate-change-denial/