NASA says 2017 was the second-hottest year on record since 1880

[Polycount]

Though global warming has always been a highly debated topic, that hasn't stopped countries like China from beginning to make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. Back in December, we reported that every public bus in China's Shenzhen city was fully electric with all of the city's taxis slated to make a similar switch by 2020.

If NASA's latest report is anything to go by, these efforts may be well-founded.

According to the agency, 2017 was the second hottest year on record since global temperature measurements first became feasible in 1880. This puts 2017 directly behind 2016 as far as record high temperatures go and 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1951-1980 mean.

This may not seem like a terribly significant increase at first glance but NASA claims it marks the continuation of Earth's "long-term warming trend" driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and "other human-made emissions" being released into the atmosphere.

That said, some of these temperature fluctuations -- specifically the ones that occurred during the third quarter of 2016 -- can be attributed to "phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña" which warmed or cooled the upper tropical Pacific Ocean.

These weather oddities subsequently resulted in erratic wind patterns and global short-term temperature variations. NASA says that if such phenomena were removed from the record entirely, 2017 would take 2016's place as the hottest year on record.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/72828-nasa-2017-second-hottest-year-record-since-1880.html

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

 

[yeeeeman]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

Yeah, right. What is funny is that we have reached a point where we don't know for sure what is propaganda and what's not. What is certain though is that this warming trend makes sense and can be felt inside cities where pollution is at its home and during summer everyone uses ac and whatever they can find to cool down. We cut forests, we filled cities with cars, concrete and nothing natural. So why it would be so hard to believe that we are actually pumping heat into the atmosphere? Sure, ecology, renewables are business and opportunity for money, but petrol is that already, cutting forests is that already, gas cars, etc. What we need to do is not to stop doing business, just do cleaner business.

 

[Evernessince]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

This data is provided by NASA. If you can dispute the data they provide, then write a rebuttal letter and submit it to any peer reviewed science paper. These are open forums where any scientist can interject their opinions on their peer's findings so it is completely open. This is the first step from taking a hypothesis and making it into a theory once enough people confirm the data.

If scientists can't tell you what heat or black holes are it's because in order to say something is scientific fact requires significant review and time by the scientific community. Many things you may consider fact would not hold up to the review process the scientists employ. If anything, that says allot about climate change, because the scientific community is almost entirely on the same page about it. It's been verified though the vostok ice core samples, through temperature data collected, through antarctic ice coverage, and through the rising sea level and depressing sea floor level.

But here's a good question, what exactly is ridiculous about Black Holes and the Big Bang? If you are privy to knowledge that completely invalidates those theories, please share.

 

[yRaz]

I made a lot of progress trying to suck my own genitalia so far. Definitely a worth while effort!

 

[Bubbajim]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

Yeah! We don't know everything therefore we know nothing! Yarr! Rabble rabble rabble!

NASA has led successful missions to the moon, landed advanced robotics on Mars, scoped out most of our solar system's planets and more. ESA landed on a fricking 4x4km2 comet going at 38km/s. These kinds of space agencies care about reliable, accurate scientific endeavour - please point me to the kinds of sources you think are actually valid.

Also, how many data points do you need before you start to think "maybe there's some truth to this..."?

 

[Manuel Diego]

"Though global warming has always been a highly debated topic" What? Oh, you mean in the USA? Outside the US we're all pretty much on the same page about global warming: it's a proven fact. But then again, so is Big Bang, so is evolution.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Pumping heat into the atmosphere? I thought they were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and it was allegedly trapping heat. Nevermind that CO2 falls out very rapidly in the atmosphere, and no mechanism ever shown for an inverse refraction. Data provided by NASA? There's no data here at all, only a postulate. NASA has led successful missions? Yeah, like six maybe. Their ratio is so poor that private contractors like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic had to be "hired". Outside the US you're all on the same page, Manuel? And you speak for who, exactly? 7.2 billion people, by your statement. As if science were a democracy to begin with.

Of course the climate changes. But to claim that humanity trumps the sun, Jupiter, and the entire galaxy is the bold, irrational claim - not mine that a scientific failure like NASA is promoting a financial agenda. They're a black hole for NSF funding, nothing more. They can't even diagram CO2 properly, much less tell us anything useful about it.

 

[Manuel Diego]

" And you speak for who, exactly?" Clearly not for you. But just go outside the US, and listen. I know listening is hard sometimes, but you might just learn what others think.
Science is not a democracy, of course. It's not a matter of opinion either. It's about data, proven models, and likely explanations. And all that, according to most of the experts (the physicists studying the matter; not the polititians, not the journalists, not the religion people, not the business world: the true experts who've devoted their lives to studying nature), points to human caused global warning. You can chose not to believe this, of course, you're free to do that, but it doesn't change the facts, which are there for you to look at them. Just dedicate a few years to study the laws of physics, and to personally test them by yourself, so that you understand that they are not made up, they are very real, and then think a little, it's really a very easy conclusion to reach once you have the knowledge.

 

[Manuel Diego]

"Data provided by NASA? There's no data here at all, only a postulate. NASA has led successful missions? Yeah, like six maybe. Their ratio is so poor that private contractors like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic had to be "hired"."
Ah, the logic! Because everything NASA does is not perfect, all it does is crap. There you are, there's little one can oppose to solid logic like that...

 

[Evernessince]

Pumping heat into the atmosphere? I thought they were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and it was allegedly trapping heat. Nevermind that CO2 falls out very rapidly in the atmosphere, and no mechanism ever shown for an inverse refraction. Data provided by NASA? There's no data here at all, only a postulate. NASA has led successful missions? Yeah, like six maybe. Their ratio is so poor that private contractors like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic had to be "hired". Outside the US you're all on the same page, Manuel? And you speak for who, exactly? 7.2 billion people, by your statement. As if science were a democracy to begin with.

Of course the climate changes. But to claim that humanity trumps the sun, Jupiter, and the entire galaxy is the bold, irrational claim - not mine that a scientific failure like NASA is promoting a financial agenda. They're a black hole for NSF funding, nothing more. They can't even diagram CO2 properly, much less tell us anything useful about it.

Um, it's not just NASA. There isn't a credible scientific body in the world that doesn't agree with man-made climate change. FYI right now we are supposed to be in a cooling period.

 

[Progamer]

Weather modification haarp. Research it

 

[Robertrogue]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

Yeah! We don't know everything therefore we know nothing! Yarr! Rabble rabble rabble!

NASA has led successful missions to the moon, landed advanced robotics on Mars, scoped out most of our solar system's planets and more. ESA landed on a fricking 4x4km2 comet going at 38km/s. These kinds of space agencies care about reliable, accurate scientific endeavour - please point me to the kinds of sources you think are actually valid.

Also, how many data points do you need before you start to think "maybe there's some truth to this..."?

How about the fact that over the last 20 million years science has proven the Earth naturally cycles hot and cold with emphasis on the sun getting hotter. Mankind is not the only cause and not the only fix. Take away every car, every power plant, and every single carbon emission man produces and it will help alleviate about 10-20% of the "global warming". However, one good house fire or medium forest fire, even a single volcanic eruption and we are right back where we are now. Heat is a funny thing, it always works towards the coldest area, I am not a "scientist" but I have been in the HVAC and refrigeration business for over 30 years and can tell you most, if not all the data involved with "Global Warming" is not all fact, most is assumptions and using "calculated" guesses. Besides, as anything decays it releases gasses into the air, how do we control this? Think about all the oceans in the world with decaying going on or the plant life emitting carbon dioxide as it decays? Yes there is climate issues, but, I don't think it is all due to mankind.

 

[Bubbajim]

How about the fact that over the last 20 million years science has proven the Earth naturally cycles hot and cold with emphasis on the sun getting hotter. Mankind is not the only cause and not the only fix. Take away every car, every power plant, and every single carbon emission man produces and it will help alleviate about 10-20% of the "global warming". However, one good house fire or medium forest fire, even a single volcanic eruption and we are right back where we are now. Heat is a funny thing, it always works towards the coldest area, I am not a "scientist" but I have been in the HVAC and refrigeration business for over 30 years and can tell you most, if not all the data involved with "Global Warming" is not all fact, most is assumptions and using "calculated" guesses. Besides, as anything decays it releases gasses into the air, how do we control this? Think about all the oceans in the world with decaying going on or the plant life emitting carbon dioxide as it decays? Yes there is climate issues, but, I don't think it is all due to mankind.

No one denies that there's a natural element to heating and cooling, the problem here is the rate of change. The rate of warming far, far exceeds anything that's ever naturally happened on our planet. It's also been known that CO2 and other gases can have heat trapping effects for well over a hundred years - and we've been pumping our CO2 at hugely 'unnatural' rates. Even at its absolute simplest, put those two things together, and you start to get a bit suspicious that there might be a link.

Now factor in the overwhelming datasets from multiple agencies across the world, almost all compiled by people trying to (a) understand what's going on, and (b) prove each other wrong, rather than right, and you start to see a rather crushingly obvious fact - global climates are changing due (mainly) to human actions, whether we want to admit it or not.

I'm not sure where your 10-20% figure is from. I'd be interested to read more on that if you have it (genuinely, not being a **** here..).

On your point about natural decay, you're right that things decay and release these gases too. But we're actively digging up the trapped carbon from things that decayed millennia ago, and is now oil, coal or gas, burning that and releasing it into the atmosphere. Again, we're vastly skewing the 'natural' cycle of things.

We're likely not the only cause of changes to the climate, but that doesn't stop us being a major factor. But really, if we can have an impact on keeping the Earth in a state which has worked for human flourishing since before we even evolved - why would we not want to?

(Also, I came across this on my lunchbreak: BBC article that looks at NASA, NOAA and the UK's Met Office measurements for global temperatures last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42736397)

 

[Ean Mogg]

The biggest lie here is "when records began" dendrologists and historians know a different story like 2000 years ago the earth was a lot hotter than today the Roman empire had to use northern countries to grow food as italy was hotter than it is today, Greenland was inhabited as well as Baffin islands so by that deduction the northwest passage was open then all of a sudden in about 500ad a Meteor hit Peru off the coast so throwing so much dirt into the atmosphere the whole earth went into a mini ice age which the earth is only now coming out and these are not theories these are facts if you know where to look ,,,

 

[Uncle Al]

Weather modification haarp. Research it

According to the various groups that have been watching HAARP, it has become all but totally extinct but who knows what kind of damage they might have done during operations ......

 

[Badvok]

What I'd like to know is how did they measure global temperature in 1880? I'm sure there must be a massive discrepancy in accuracy between 1880 and 2017. Are we only seeing an increase because we are measuring more accurately?

 

[Robertrogue]

No one denies that there's a natural element to heating and cooling, the problem here is the rate of change. The rate of warming far, far exceeds anything that's ever naturally happened on our planet. It's also been known that CO2 and other gases can have heat trapping effects for well over a hundred years - and we've been pumping our CO2 at hugely 'unnatural' rates. Even at its absolute simplest, put those two things together, and you start to get a bit suspicious that there might be a link.

Now factor in the overwhelming datasets from multiple agencies across the world, almost all compiled by people trying to (a) understand what's going on, and (b) prove each other wrong, rather than right, and you start to see a rather crushingly obvious fact - global climates are changing due (mainly) to human actions, whether we want to admit it or not.

I'm not sure where your 10-20% figure is from. I'd be interested to read more on that if you have it (genuinely, not being a **** here..).

On your point about natural decay, you're right that things decay and release these gases too. But we're actively digging up the trapped carbon from things that decayed millennia ago, and is now oil, coal or gas, burning that and releasing it into the atmosphere. Again, we're vastly skewing the 'natural' cycle of things.

We're likely not the only cause of changes to the climate, but that doesn't stop us being a major factor. But really, if we can have an impact on keeping the Earth in a state which has worked for human flourishing since before we even evolved - why would we not want to?

(Also, I came across this on my lunchbreak: BBC article that looks at NASA, NOAA and the UK's Met Office measurements for global temperatures last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42736397)

I keep leaning towards the "unnatural" high rate. How do we assume that the earth has not rapidly changed radical temps before? There has been found animals from the ice age that were frozen in place, which would indicate an unnatural rate of change, and the earth has been completely covered with water at one time. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist I am saying that it is not just mankind. The 10-20% less co2 in the atmosphere is an assumption. Since co2 gas is needed to be absorbed by the vegetation and refined into oxygen then the numbers would be a longer process than just stopping the production of CO2. I'm looking at the current volcanic activity across the world too. There are 1500 active volcanoes right now in the world, how many billions of tons of gases are these producing that we cannot stop? I just think that fossil fuels are not the main cause, I feel that it is just about a quarter of the problem. My calculated guess is that man has contributed only a quarter of the problem. Maybe we can help but it would only help partially if the sun doesn't decide to start cooling some, or the earth doesn't move farther away from the sun.

 

[Robertrogue]

My biggest question, how do the experts know what the median temp of the earth is suppose to be? Earth is somewhere around a billion years old? We can look at fossils that are a couple hundred million years old? So with less than 10% of the data available we can assume there is a problem? Sounds like mankind thinking way too much of itself. Data is only as good as the input and the interpretation of the data. Bad data in equals bad interpretation. Good data in with bad interpretation is equally bad.

 

[p51d007]

Notice how they said "since 1880"...gee...why is THAT so important?? That was about at the end of the "industrial revolution", which a lot of bed-wetting scientist say is what caused global warming (climate change). That is a bunch of hogwash. There have been warmer times, there have been cooler times. Trying to say man has anything to do with a time frame of a couple hundred years, WHEN THE EARTH IS HOW MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD is just stupid, but, considering people aren't educated to think for themselves, but, to be brainwashed by a bunch of socialist crap, doesn't surprise me so many people believe this myth of man made global warming (climate change).

 

[wiyosaya]

I really love the discussions on topics like these that are so hot-button to conservatives, and I love how conservatives seem to think that science is whatever pours out of the mouths of people who's views they like.

The rate of change of climate is what is the problem since most species that exist on Earth have no means to evolve at the accelerated rate of the current climate change.

Since the end of the 1800s. That's a hot button. However, there is more knowledge about the climate and the content of the atmosphere going back at least hundreds of millennia. That knowledge comes from analysis of ice cores taken from both Greenland and Antarctica. In fact, that knowledge of climate and the content of the atmosphere goes back at least 200-thousand years.

I suppose, though, if you believe that the Earth is only 5-thousand years old, an age of 200-thousand years conflicts with your world view and leads you to call BS on that kind of data even though it is well established in science how science is able to date things back beyond 5-thousand years. There are many different isotopes used in dating of which carbon is only one.

I think it quite interesting that some of the posts here are belching what they believe to be scientific fact. For example, the age of the earth is somewhere around a billion years old. Wow! How difficult is it to look this stuff up instead of belching beliefs? Just amazing that such drivel is posited as the truth.

One thing I really do not get is how anyone claiming to be conservative can overlook the fact that the fossil fuels we burn collected carbon from the atmosphere over millions of years before we started burning them. Those fossil fuels were once plants that existed and extracted CO2 from their atmosphere over millions of years. It seems pretty plain to me that if there were one iota of true conservatism in the arguments of those who claim to be conservative that such "conservatives" would come to the conclusion that since it is consensus that CO2 traps heat, releasing all the carbon that was collected over millions of years back into the atmosphere over the period of a few hundred years is almost certainly not a good idea - especially given the propensity of humanity to grind current forests, which act to remove carbon from the atmosphere, into oblivion.

The scientific consensus is that humanity is a contributor to climate change. Maybe humanity cannot control the other contributions to climate change, however, humanity can control its own contribution. That takes a willingness to work with others and come to consensus. However, there are those, or so it seems, that refuse to listen to consensus. I suppose, though, if you have God or those who lack any understanding of science whispering in your ear, that is all the consensus you need.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yeah, uh-huh. Sound legit.

National foundation, national propaganda. These are the same people that still can't tell us what heat is in the first place, and believe in things like black holes, neutron stars, and The Big Bang. They'll say anything to stay relevant and keep their outrageous funding.

Yeah! We don't know everything therefore we know nothing! Yarr! Rabble rabble rabble!

NASA has led successful missions to the moon, landed advanced robotics on Mars, scoped out most of our solar system's planets and more. ESA landed on a fricking 4x4km2 comet going at 38km/s. These kinds of space agencies care about reliable, accurate scientific endeavour - please point me to the kinds of sources you think are actually valid.

Also, how many data points do you need before you start to think "maybe there's some truth to this..."?

How about the fact that over the last 20 million years science has proven the Earth naturally cycles hot and cold with emphasis on the sun getting hotter. Mankind is not the only cause and not the only fix. Take away every car, every power plant, and every single carbon emission man produces and it will help alleviate about 10-20% of the "global warming". However, one good house fire or medium forest fire, even a single volcanic eruption and we are right back where we are now. Heat is a funny thing, it always works towards the coldest area, I am not a "scientist" but I have been in the HVAC and refrigeration business for over 30 years and can tell you most, if not all the data involved with "Global Warming" is not all fact, most is assumptions and using "calculated" guesses. Besides, as anything decays it releases gasses into the air, how do we control this? Think about all the oceans in the world with decaying going on or the plant life emitting carbon dioxide as it decays? Yes there is climate issues, but, I don't think it is all due to mankind.

So you think that science has not considered those other sources? Interesting.

In HVAC, where? The US? HVAC in the US is a bunch of hot air. Radiant flooring is the superior alternative. Also, in the US, entities blocked super efficient insulation such as gas-filled panels while the patent was valid. Look it up. Gas-filled panels are so efficient that cooking and body heat would be enough to heat a house insulated with them - even in "stud" 2x4 cavities. The US, for HVAC, is expert at highly-efficient waste.

 

[wiyosaya]

The biggest lie here is "when records began" dendrologists and historians know a different story like 2000 years ago the earth was a lot hotter than today the Roman empire had to use northern countries to grow food as italy was hotter than it is today, Greenland was inhabited as well as Baffin islands so by that deduction the northwest passage was open then all of a sudden in about 500ad a Meteor hit Peru off the coast so throwing so much dirt into the atmosphere the whole earth went into a mini ice age which the earth is only now coming out and these are not theories these are facts if you know where to look ,,,

Really, now? The dark ages - meteor? That is not what the scientific consensus says. https://phys.org/news/2016-04-volcanoes-trigger-crises-late-antiquity.html

So, would your solution be that humanity invent mass-drivers capable of bombarding the sh!thole countries from space to combat climate change?

 

[USAvenger]

Welcome, all ye devoted followers of the Church of Climate Change (CoCC).

 

[wiyosaya]

Welcome, all ye devoted followers of the Church of Climate Change (CoCC).

I would rather make attempts at something based on scientific consensus and fail than to sit back, drink more moonshine, and pretend all is good.

Of course, we all know from the all-knowing Mitch McConnell that climate change does not exist, "I do not believe in Global Warming because God said he would not smite the Earth again."