From NASA Goddard:
Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.
Video: Earth’s surface temperatures in 2017 were the second warmest since since 1880, when global estimates first become feasible, NASA scientists found. Global temperatures 2017 were second only to 2016, which still holds the record for the hottest year; however, 2017 was the warmest year on record that did not start with an El Nino weather pattern, as the previous two years did. In a separate, independent analysis, NOAA scientists found that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference is due to different methods to analyze global temperatures used by the two agencies, although over the long-term the records remain in strong agreement. Music: Sojourner Rover by Craig Warnock [PRS], Lee Ahmad Baker [PRS], Sean Hennessey [PRS]
In a separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference in rankings is due to the different methods used by the two agencies to analyze global temperatures, although over the long-term the agencies’ records remain in strong agreement. Both analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.
Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2017’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.
“Despite colder than average temperatures in any one part of the world, temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we’ve seen over the last 40 years,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a little more than 1 degree Celsius) during the last century or so, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Last year was the third consecutive year in which global temperatures were more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above late nineteenth-century levels.
Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the upper tropical Pacific Ocean and cause corresponding variations in global wind and weather patterns, contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño event was in effect for most of 2015 and the first third of 2016. Even without an El Niño event – and with a La Niña starting in the later months of 2017 – last year’s temperatures ranked between 2015 and 2016 in NASA’s records.
In an analysis where the effects of the recent El Niño and La Niña patterns were statistically removed from the record, 2017 would have been the warmest year on record.
Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced similar amounts of warming. NOAA found the 2017 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the third warmest on record.
Warming trends are strongest in the Arctic regions, where 2017 saw the continued loss of sea ice.
NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations.
These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different baseline period, and different methods to analyze Earth’s polar regions and global temperatures.
The full 2017 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
GISS is a laboratory within the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.
NASA uses the unique vantage point of space to better understand Earth as an interconnected system. The agency also uses airborne and ground-based monitoring, and develops new ways to observe and study Earth with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. NASA shares this knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P.Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
[…]
“The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288 K”
[…]
SCIENCE. VOL. 213
p. 957
The report published has made the astonishing discovery that the ENTIRE WORLD has warmed from ~288 K al the way up to ~287.877778 K
I have a few science degrees, I can count and I can remember my subject matter. Published by the God of Warmie hisself.
These two were published in the opinion readers response in relation to the above article.
Even though they fudge the numbers, who cares? I still recommend stopping the geoengineering. Brown skies everyday.
The longer term picture….
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Europe-Rydval-17.jpg
That blue section covers the COLDEST 500 years in the whole of the Holocene,
Before that, we had the Holocene Optimum for some 5000 years, then a gradual 3000 year drop in to that 500 year cold period. Any period up to 9,000 years before this graph would have been WARMER.
This graph represents the COOLEST1000 years of the whole Holocene.
It is ONLY during that 500 year period and a short period around the late1970’s – 2006, that sea ice was at a greater extent than it currently is…
You can also clearly see the 1940s warm spike on this chart as well, on average, about the same as 2000.
Here is what Author Rydval had to say about Richard/notrickszone misrepresentation of his graph:
“Milos Rydval, University of St. Andrews
In the Rydval et al 2017 article, we clearly and repeatedly emphasize that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with our temperature reconstruction and this generally increases further back in time and is related to, among others, data availability. This point is discussed in considerable detail in the paper and is a matter that was entirely ignored by the source cited in the Breitbart article. Thus, the cited statement: “the reconstruction] suggests that the recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s” was taken out of context and misrepresented. The cited source conveniently omitted the second part of the sentence which highlights uncertainty in the earlier parts of the reconstruction and includes a cautionary statement about the interpretation of those periods. Also, it should be noted that our study provides information about conditions in and around Scotland, and is therefore not a representation of the average global trends of tem”
The match between Iceland sea ice records is quite good., also other similar records.
Do you DENY that the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima existed ?
Do you DENY that they were colder than now.?
Your DENIAL runs deep Nick… but its all you have to prop up your baseless belief system,
Further, I have not made ANY comment about anyone else’s comments
The graph speaks for itself , and aligns well with other data.
The period from about 1200 -1850ish was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years .
You KNOW that Nick. Do not continue to DENY facts.
It is also the ONLY period 650 years out of 10,000 where sea ice extent was higher than now, (apart from the spike in the late 1970s)
For most of the other 9000 + years sea ice extent WAS LOWER.
MULTIPLE data displays this FACT.
End of story.
“MULTIPLE data displays this FACT.”
If you stopped producing doctored fakes, you might get somewhere.
Doctored fakes…. ROFLMAO. !!!
No Nick, that is YOUR department.
None of graphs I posted are fakes, especially NOT the Stein graph.
If you are so mathematically and scientifically inept that you can’t see that NO DATA WAS CHANGED in any way, just the presentation of the graph
then NO-ONE can help you.
Is there any change in the data that is conveyed by the graph , Nick? Be Honest ! (as if)
I agree that the one post just above has error issues,
MWP should be warmer than they show it.
Let’s see if Nick RUNS AWAY from these questions again
Do you DENY that the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima existed ?
Do you DENY that they were colder than now.?
Do you DENY that a large proportion of the Holocene before those 650 or years COLDER years, was WARMER than current temperatures?
“especially NOT the Stein graph”
Well, lets look at it again:
There seems to be a simple rule here. Any genuine text has been distortd by re-scaling. If it isn’t distorted, it’s fake. Your presentation clearly represents that it is a graph from Stein et al.
So he’s added an x-axis. Fake but accurate. And the annotations. Fake but maybe. But the heading? Fake and a lie. Stein made no claim that they were graphing “Holocene Sea-Ice cover variations”. Yet these words are prominantly attributed to them. Their graph makes it quite clear that they are graphing biomarker indices found in a sediment core, ARA2B-1A, in the Chukchi Sea.
The graph most certainly IS from extracted Stein et al.
You have shown that yourself.
Has the data been changed?
Are the annotations misleading or incorrect?
The graph conveys EXACTLY the same data as the original.
It is NOT “FAKE” nor is it a misrepresentation of the original graph.
It is note that you YET AGAIN, avoided answering the 3 questions
Do you DENY that the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima existed ?
Do you DENY that they were colder than now.?
Do you DENY that a large proportion of the Holocene before those 650 or years COLDER years, was WARMER than current temperatures?
He DID NOT add an x-axis.
He transferred it from the left of the irrelevant graphs.
Again, anyone can see that NO CHANGES were made to the data conveyed by the original graph
Many other graphs back up the TRUTH of The first 8000 or so years of the Holocene being significantly WARMER than now, and nearly always having far LESS sea ice than now, often being summer ice free.
Interestingly, if you rotate the Stein graph 180 it aligns rather well with the GISP ice core data.
Funny about that. 🙂
Now, about those 3 questions Nick
Do you DENY that the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minima existed ?
Do you DENY that they were colder than now.?
Do you DENY that a large proportion of the Holocene before those 650 or years COLDER years, was WARMER than current temperatures?
Poor Nick. You are doing GREAT impression of a chook without a head. ! 🙂
No funny !
“He transferred it from the left of the irrelevant graphs.”
No. As I said, the tell is that genuine text is distorted. In fact, the label is different text, and the numbers have been rotated. Fake but accurate. It’s good that he was able to accurately construct an x-axis, but we should be told that this is happening.
You are WRONG Nick. They are in the correct position, Yes the axis has been stretch but again
answer this question
Has the data conveyed by the graph been altered in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER ?
Simple question , Nick. Easy Peasy. !!
It is AGAIN noted you avoided the other three questions
EVERYBODY can see you squirming around them Nick.
Are the x-axis numbers in the wrong place , Nick..
Yes or No.
There is NOTHING mathematically or scientifically wrong with making a graph more legible.
So long at you don’t change the data the graph conveys.
Has the data conveyed been changed in ANY WAY AT ALL, Nick ??
You KNOW the answer is NO, but you are just to pig-headed to say it.
I thought the Twitter POTUS was going to stop both NOAA and NASA from atmospheric sciences, and especially reporting that this is all down to CO2. This is a very biased report.
Nothing has changed, I think your man has lost his agenda. When is the red team blue team thing happening, or did I miss it.
Regards
EL Ninos and La Ninas are temporary features of the ocean and must not be included in calculations to determine which year is warmest. If you take iut the large El Ninos used in calculating the warmest year you are likely to find that 2017 was not the warmest year on record.
2015, 2016, 2017 all have warming facets from the N Atlantic Blob and the El Nino.
A lot of energy was released from the oceans in those three years.
(What happens to an object when it releases energy?)
Its taking a while to dissipate, but it will be interesting to see where we are in 6-12 months time. 🙂
ps, I apologise for some of the images posted disappearing, PostImage seems to be down at the moment.
“The combined global average temperature over the land and ocean surfaces for November 2017 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). ”
from …..https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201711
However NOAA also thought the twentieth century average temperature was 15.5° C [59.9°F].
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706
Errrrr, yes, well……
So was the temperature over or below the average, what was the average..?
Greg, you are correct, they keep changing their minds about the Averages, as they have to, because they keep lowering the historic data.
They are continuously calling themselves liars.
Just look at the 1998 report for 1997 to see it for yourself.
1997 used to be 62.45F or 16.92C, now it is 58.13F or 14.53C.
Soon it will be even lower.
GregK
You’re confusing annual and monthly values. One of your linked reports is referring to June, the other to November. All months have different absolute temperature reference values. The annual value is the average of these: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
In any case, the point of a temperature record as used in climatology is to monitor ‘change over time’. You can do that using anomalies irrespective of what the absolute starting value is.
PS See the ‘Mean Temperature Estimates’ link in the above NOAA link for their estimated absolute mean temperature values for each month.
DWR54, “Estimates”, yes exactly.
The other word for them that they use is “modelled”, which is the same thing.
They get the answers they want & need.
The utility of using anomalies “irrespective of what the absolute starting value is” depends on the baseline from which the “anomaly” is determined, is dependent on the accuracy (not precision) of the estimated values and changes, and is of value in the presentation of climatic trends only to obscure the actual temperatures being measured and press a narrative. It’s of little use other than that. It is hugely irrelevant when there is clear evidence of collusion to change past data to support alarmist claims. It’s a statistical trick the way it’s used by the CAGW practitioners, and statistics used in the way they do have more to do with presentation of a viewpoint to influence political thought than with “monitoring change over time.”
Graphs with a hugely magnified y-axis scale to show dramatic changes in “anomaly” and the resulting exaggerated linear trend is far scarier to the ignorant than is a graph showing the actual small fluctuation in the estimated global mean temperatures over a long period of time, including error bars.
If you show a graph, using a reasonable Y axis scale, of the estimated annual global temperature – including error bars – for the past 150 years or more – people would yawn and say “where’s the crisis?”
If you use anomalies to monitor change over time, you have to stop at present time without pretending that you are doing anything more than monitoring change over time. Adding a linear trend line to a segment of data of questionable accuracy (because error bars are excluded) over a snippet of time and implying that said trend line is an absolute predictor of future anomalies is disingenuous at best.
If you include error bars, you can see that the claims of one year being 2/100 of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than another is a fallacy because the instruments measuring the raw data are an order of magnitude less accurate than that, and that most of the alarmism is over small fluctuations within the statistical margin of error.
I particularly like the way NOAA merges datasets and gets a tightening of the uncertainties.
So by extension the public is to believe El Nino heat is trapped in the Arctic region forever? Good luck with that and better line up the next message management shift to another part of the globe. Just keep the cold anomalies stationed over NY, Boston, and Paris. That would be optimum climate conditions.
Well into the fourth decade of this “unprecedented” warming, and the common consensus among the taxpayers is “If it gets any warmer, I’m going to freeze my ass off”!
And NASA responds by redoubling their propaganda efforts. I am especially impressed with their manufacturing of global data back to 1880. The civil servants that were taking temperatures in life-threatening conditions all over the world, with no modern conveniences in transportation and communications, and faithfully reporting the results, are much more impressive than the current crop, we are paying top dollar to get top shelf fabrications. It amazes me how we got so much data, from such a trifling of measurement. I guess when you already know the answer, the questions are greatly simplified. /sarc
And the grand solar minimum continues apace with record cold and snow the reality. Where is the explanation in AGW of this simple fact?
A penetrating dissection of GISS’s vaunted algorithm reveals that the word “considers” hides the fact that it arbitrarily “homogenizes” disparately spaced station records and does nothing effective to eliminate UHI bias in a predominantly urban data base. Their whole claim here is bogus science.
To generalize about ‘average’ global temperatures requires perhaps more scientific data than we now possess. But certainly, the ‘science’ on this topic going back 100 years or more is woefully inadequate.
It requires millions of temperature-measuring instruments around the globe to get an accurate picture. This is a modern endeavor, requiring satellites. Our knowledge about past ‘average’ global temperature is therefore guesswork, much of it politicized. Any claim about average global temperatures a century ago is fraudulent. There’s simply too much missing data.
Interestingly, our current so-called ‘warming’ period is being compared to an era where temperatures had allegedly been dipping (1950 – 1980) from previous ‘norms’. 1950-1980 was the calamitous ‘global cooling’ era. Have you forgotten?
The phenomena of ‘global cooling’ was a big deal in the 1970s. I wrote about it as a young journalism student in 1975. Fact: ‘global cooling’ was scientifically measured and ‘real’. And it threatened humanity! ‘Global cooling’ was also hyped heavily by the mainstream press of that era. Amazing, but true. ‘Average’ temperatures did measurably decline during this era.
Perhaps today’s ‘warming’ is merely a return to ‘normal’ temperatures. No one knows. It’s all been horribly politicized.
In any event, our so-called global warming is not responsible the the enormous environmental destruction that has ensued with the rise in human population. The human family grows by about 75 million people every year. This is the core problem.
It is human hunting, human-caused pollution and human caused habitat destruction that are the real culprits here. AGW is not the problem. In fact, slightly warmer temperatures might be a boon to humanity. No one knows for sure. But the unprecedented rise of human numbers is taking a terrible toll on our natural world.
In the meantime overall oceanic temperatures continue to trend down now +.178c. AGW theory is false and will be shown to be so within the next few years.