The hiatus is no more, apparently. Or rather, it never was. “Nature Hiatus” might have to change its name, or at least its main focus of publication.
I never really understood why the “hiatus” was such a thing. Whether or not the warming trend since some carefully chosen date is positive, negative, and “significantly” so or not, is mostly an exercise in cherry-picking and the abuse of significance testing (The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant), not to mention the sort of “gotcha” that belongs in the political domain if anywhere. What matters is how well the obs agree with model projections, and there is no particular threshold of zero trend that has any special importance in that respect. Furthermore, whether or not there is an interval with zero or negative trend, no-one with any clue would dispute that we will continue to see warming in the long term, with some natural variability overlaid on top of that.
Lots of people have blogged this in some detail. RC, Doug M
acNeall (Doug can you please change your name to a sensible spelling?) and Stoat, to name but three. I am still somewhat unconvinced by some of the model-data comparisons which smack rather too much of move-along-nothing-to-see-ism for my taste. The models do generally overestimate the trend over quite a long period, it is pretty marginal to claim that they agree with the data, and we've been waiting for the long-promised acceleration in warming for some time. As recently as 2006 or so, many prominent scientists were proclaiming an expected warming of 0.72C over the inerval 2000-2030. That's not looking too likely right now. Even with the multiply-promised El Ninos (and 2015 looks set for being another record year), the recent warming is no more than steady.