I was recently posed a question regarding a UK Met office statement that global warming has "paused", with the comment that "surely they have a lot of scientists." Where to start with this...
The 'pause' 1: 2014 was the warmest year on record (since 1880). The previous record was 2010. Next was 2005. Nine of the ten warmest years on record are in the 21st. That's hardly a pause, when we are still breaking records: 1998, 2005, 2010, 2014.
The 'pause' 2: From a slightly longer term perspective, February 1985 was the last time global surface temperatures fell below the 20th-century average for a given month. February this year was the 360th month in a row. No one younger than 30 has ever lived through a below-average month. The last full year that was colder than the 20th-century average was 1976.
The 'pause' 3: Warming is always 'paused', for deniers who are ready to cherry pick data: Realists vs 'skeptics' views of global warming, or Global Temperatures over the last century and a half
Models versus measurement: note that the above cannot be dismissed as 'just models', they are actual measurements of temperatures. Real data. Here's an old model versus actual measurements: Dr. Hansen's 1981 projections vs observations. I use Hansen's model because he is widely referenced. As you can see that our globalized civilization has chosen the 'fast growth' curve which will have maximum negative impact.
The 'pause' 4: There are currently at least 24 studies, using a wide range of different temperature data and proxies, which confirm the hockey stick, not a pause. These too are measurements for as far back as the records go, then of necessity, various proxies to project back in time.
Meteorology vs climate science: Climate is not weather. Meteorologists are not climate scientists - they are in different fields. Meteorology progresses through increasing accuracy and resolution of weather simulators, simulators which only deal with atmospheric parameters. A weather simulator, no matter how accurate, with a week or ten days projection can't include biology, ecology nor geology which act in decadal and century time-frames. "...We believe that the acknowledgement of biogeochemistry as a full part of the climate system distinguishes the true climate scientist from the converted meteorologist. ...The problem is, though, that putting ecosystems into a climate simulator is a huge challenge, and progress is difficult to quantify. It introduces more uncertain parameters, and, by replacing prescribed fields with time-evolving fields, it can actually make the performance of the simulator worse,..." Uncertainty in climate science and climate policy
Here is an interview with a true skeptic, Richard Muller. He was an outspoken skeptic, with sufficient credibility to have his Berkely Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project funded by the Koch brothers. Had he, or any other scientist, come up with credible results that confirmed the Koch's denialist perspective, they would be very wealthy indeed. Any credible challenge to climate science would be a path to wealth and fame, with no need to struggle for project funding. Hasn't happened.
The scariest temperature curves I've seen are truly long-term, back past the beginnings of civilization and agriculture, past the first modern humans. For 10,000 years we've been blessed with an incredibly stable climate which has enabled civilization and agriculture. Should we push climate outside that comfort zone, the consequences could be very harsh indeed. We've had the first and only stable temperature in 800,000 years. We've been lucky. We're now pushing our luck.
